Judging Freedom - Ray McGovern: Trump, CIA, and a Helpless Ukraine.

Episode Date: December 23, 2024

Ray McGovern: Trump, CIA, and a Helpless 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 Monday, December 23rd, 2024. It's Christmas week. Ray McGovern will be here with us in just a moment on Donald Trump and a helpless Ukraine. But first, this. We're taught to work hard for 35 to 40 years. Save your money, then live off your savings. Unfortunately, there are too many threats undermining the value of our hard earned dollars. The Fed's massive money printing machine is shrinking your dollar's value. Just the cost of groceries is absurd. Let me be brutally honest.

I think the dollar is on its way to being extinct. Not just here, but globally. The BRICS nations, led by Russia and China, threaten to remove the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Central banks have been shifting away from the dollar and into gold. And if we go to central bank digital currency, that will not only destroy the dollar, but we will lose our freedom. We will lose our privacy. They can track anything we do. You need to take care of yourself and your family. So here's what you need to do. Immerse yourself in knowledge and information. The writing is on the wall. Now is the time to consider shifting some of your dollars into gold and

silver as your bedrock financial asset. Call my friends at Lear Capital, the leader in precious metals investing for over 27 years. They help me diversify into gold and silver. They can help you too. Call Lear today at 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620, or go to learjudgenap.com. Ray McGovern, welcome here, my dear friend, and early Merry Christmas to you and to your family. Ray, the Financial Times reports this morning that the Trump transition team has told Kiev and has told NATO leaders that President Trump will likely continue military and financial aid to Ukraine when he is inaugurated on January 20th. Surprised? Not surprising, Judge. The content is surprising.

This is smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors. I don't know exactly how to explain this one, but it's very doubtful that that is Trump's intention. I think he wants to deal. And as you probably know, I'm more optimistic about the chances for, well, not glad tidings of great joy, but some good tidings of substantial hope that when Kellogg and flights get on their way and talk with their opposite numbers in Russia, things will improve and that Ukraine will be settled within

the first few months of Trump's administration without further aid from Trump or anyone else except those poor Europeans. You said Kellogg and flights. Fred flights? Is he working with General Kellogg? He is. He and Kellogg wrote that paper together. And the paper is not as extreme, it's far less extreme than the words that Kellogg has been saying. Again, you have smoke and mirrors here. Kellogg is saying what people put on a piece of paper before him when he talks to interviewers. When push comes to shove, there's a willingness and a desire on the part of both Russia and the Trump administration

to cut a deal on Ukraine. The terms are not all that far apart. I'm an outlier on this, but, you know, when you talk even about entry into NATO, I think I've said this before, the flights and Kellogg's say, well, you know, no entry for 10 years. And everybody says, no, the Russians will never buy that. Well, what if the Russians come back and say, well, 50 years? How about 50 years? And Trump says, no, no, how about 35? Deal. How does that NATO going to look like in 35 years? That's what I ask. I mean, FICO is up there from Slovakia talking to Putin now. NATO is falling apart. They might not be around in 10 years. So there's flexibility there. There's also flexibility in some of the other terms. And that's what will happen. The big deal, of course, is they're

talking to each other, or they will be talking to each other in just another 20 some days. So you got two guys negotiating for Donald Trump. One of them is in the same neocon category as Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley. I know Fred, I've known him for years. The other, the other, the general has been saying that six times as many Russian troops have died as have Ukrainians. I don't know where he could possibly be getting that from. Either your former colleagues in the CIA are intentionally misleading him and he's naive enough to articulate it, or he has no idea what's going on. They give him a piece of paper and he speaks from it before these interviews. Don't take that stuff at face value. There's lots of flexibility here.

After all, you know, if Trump were afraid of appearing too pro-Russian as he used to be, why would he have criticized outwardly and vociferously the notion that we're sending longer-range missiles into Russia proper. He came out strong against that. Now, that betrays a feeling of self-confidence. They can deal with these people. All you have to do is talk to them. Does Putin want to take over Poland and the Baltics? No, he doesn't. Does he want to take over the rest of Ukraine? No, he doesn't. All he wants to have is a secure Ukraine, maybe two of them, that has a buffer zone where the Russians don't have to be afraid of even intermediate range ballistic missiles. Does the Biden administration and do the incoming Trump people understand and agree with what you've just said? Or do they think Putin has lost, but if Putin had his druthers, he'd invade Poland?

You know, Judge, these are not dumb people. So I have to say that either they've brainwashed themselves, convinced themselves that they're right or they're being completely duplicitous that most americans believe that poland and the baltics are next on the list is shameful but most americans do so it'll take some months but i think trump and whoever he has negotiating for him will be listening to Trump, not to the neocons. And I know Fred Fleitz, too. You know, everybody changes. And I read his paper, the paper that he wrote with Kellogg himself several months ago.

It's not unreasonable. They can deal. And in my view, they will deal. The Russians don't want to go any farther than they've already gone. It's not about land for Russia. It's about security. And once Trump understands that, there's a reasonable chance, in my view, that a deal can be cut. Here is President Zelensky yesterday on Sunday talking about, I think this is crazy, the value Ukraine can bring to NATO.

Cut number seven. Allies need to know what Ukraine can bring to NATO and how this membership in the alliance would stabilize global relations. Alliance for Ukraine is achievable, but it is achievable only if we fight for this decision. Well, that doesn't make any sense, Ray. Yeah. Well, Zelensky is delusional. It's not going to be Zelensky making these choices. The front is collapsing. People are surrendering or running away.

It's just a matter of time before the Russians advance all the way to the Dnieper River. And in Kursk. In Kursk that was the stupidest military operation ever. Those troops are surrounded now. There are thousands of them. Why don't the Russians just finish them off? Eh, something to trade here. He'll give Trump, hey, those POWs we have in Kursk, they were misled. We'll give them back to you in return for...

So in other words, when you want to make a deal, you can make a deal. Both have strong incentives to get rid of Ukraine. Trump, for other reasons, he wants to focus on the Far East and the Middle East. And it's doable. And, you know, the terms that Putin laid down in June were strong. They're stringent, but there's flexibility in them. And it's a mistake to say that they're an ultimatum. They're not an ultimatum. There are no ultimatums until they've talked for a while and can't reach an agreement i don't think that's going to happen here's the worst in ambassador freeman's view secretary of state as in in the modern that is post-world war ii era although he may actually have said the worst secretary of

state ever which goes back to thomas jefferson cut number six if this gets to a place where there is a ceasefire and it's a ceasefire that's on unjust and durable terms that would be a good thing but for it to be durable there has to be some kind of assurance that russia is not simply going to rest refit and re-attack in a year two years five years that's going to be critical if we get that ukraine is on a path to success it's a country that is standing strongly as an independent country. It was not erased from the map. That's what Putin wanted to do. He's failed.

It can stand strongly on its own feet, militarily, economically, democratically. That's the best possible rebuke to Putin. And I know President Trump will want to get a good deal going forward. Does he believe? Wait, you're not a shrink. You're a brilliant guy, Ray. You're not a shrink. Does he believe what he says?

God knows. You know, the essence of this whole thing is that in return for a ceasefire initially, the Russians need, well, what they really need is some assurance that they'll be taken seriously, right? And as is said here in this one memo here, a long-term moratorium on membership in NATO. Now, that's a strong desire by the Russians, but if NATO is going to fall apart in the next 10 years, You know, there's a deal to be cut there. NATO is already falling apart. There are no governments in Germany or France to speak of. FIFCO from Slovakia is up there in Moscow yesterday talking about gas deliveries and also talking about Ukraine. Italy is a dubious thing.

There are lots of stuff. Ukraine, my God, NATO is falling apart. Putin recognizes that. Will he let them down gently? I think he will. Will he insist that all Ukrainian forces leave those four provinces? Yeah, eventually. I think that's negotiable, too. You know, they only have little slices of Donetsk. What's to prevent a deal? Okay, we won't go to the Dnieper all the way. We'll deal until we get a ceasefire. I think that's negotiable. Again, I'm an outlier here, and it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, but I think it's a mistake to dismiss these guys who are still spouting propaganda, like Kellogg, and say, well, when he goes to Moscow, they won't like him.

Well, it depends on what he has as a portfolio when he goes to Moscow. And I think there'll be terms that they can actually talk about and negotiate. Let me prevail upon your expertise in the intelligence community. The CIA director, Bill Burns, spent the weekend in Kiev. What do you think he said to President Zelensky? Does he believe that Putin has lost? There they are.

This is yesterday. Go ahead. Oh, there you go. Yeah. So I asked all your viewers to put a caption on that one. What's Bill Burns laughing so much about? Well, Zelensky, we told you we're good for as long as it takes. Well, as long as it takes me, it's January 20th for us.

Sorry about that. You can deal with Trump, see if he gives you a better term. But, yeah, we gave it a try. That's us for as long as it takes. Well, you know, that photo sent me back to July 1st, 2023, last year, okay, when Burns made a major speech and he said the Russians have lost in Ukraine and their ineptitude of their military has been laid bare for the whole world to see. July 1st, July 13th, Biden gets up in Helsinki and says Putin has already lost in Ukraine. Now, we knew that that was not the case.

So where did Bill Burns get that? Well, I did a little research over the weekend. I found out Bill Burns was talking to Zelensky in mid-June of 2023, okay? And Zelensky must have told him, we got it all squared away here. We're going to have that spring offensive, or maybe it'll be a summer offensive, but it'll be offensive. So don't worry about it. Tell the president Russia has already lost. And I don't know,

I can't speak for Bill Burns, but did he go to the president and say, well, Zelensky says Russia's already lost. He must know because he's Ukrainian, right? So, I mean, it's such a fiasco of ineptitude or cringing before the president telling him what will make him happy. Not only he, of course, but his nominal boss, Averill Haynes, said in December, the previous December 2022, Russia

is running out of ammunition. And, you know, they have no indigenous capability to replace the losses that they suffer on the battlefield. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Where the hell did you get that? From Zelensky? Give me a break. That's what's happened to the CIA. Does Bill Burns know the true state of military affairs on the ground from the raw intel that he sees, or has he been deluded, or is he just being deceptive? Well, you know, when you get up to the ethereal fields there and you're on the cabinet, for God's sake, which a head of the CIA should never be, you're policymaking. And when the policy is such, you trim the intelligence to suit the policy.

So whether he's been being told the truth by anybody down in the bowels of the CIA, it doesn't matter. He's going to trim it to what he want what he thinks the president will be does he believe it it's hard for me to believe that he believes it because he's a smart guy and you know but he's been completely turned around in 2008 he was told by lavrov look if you don't stop trying to get ukraine in nato that will provoke us and we'll have to do X, Y, and Z. It's in a cable. I've read the cable. WikiLeaks gave me the cable and it's authentic. Okay. So what did he say when the special military operation came in? He said, oh, unprovoked, completely unprovoked, as though the US had no hand in this. When we know from the NATO Secretary General against Stoltenberg that just weeks before the special military operation, the Russians came and said, look, you know,

if you don't give up this notion of Ukraine and NATO, we're going to have to invade Ukraine, like, really soon, okay? And Stoltenberg told the EU in public ha ha ha fortune didn't want to expand nato and look sweden and finland are getting into nato and so we said no and so he invaded i mean there it is i mean if if you get out the the uh the real problem here of NATO membership to Ukraine, and that can be dealt with, I think. Then you have a resolution to the problem. Then you start working on an architecture in Central Europe that make the Russians feel secure.

And I'd say just one more time, there is no security for any country without mutual security. If one feels threatened by the other, they're going to do what they can if they have the power and Russia has the power. Here's what Zelensky said after meeting with Bill Burns, quote, we don't disclose secrets, but we keep in touch. We will likely meet again, and we will surely see how this war ends with a real and lasting peace, a peace we are working toward together. I don't know what he means by we will likely meet again. Bill Burns has about 25 days remaining in his job. Maybe he's going

to make another trip there in early January. No, I saw that earlier on, actually, when they met. I can't figure it out either.'s just zielinski uh smoke and mirrors you know uh do we have given up on us do we have a window uh from people close to putin one of whom recently wrote a piece about it do we have a window into putin's thinking we do we not only have his public remarks, which I'm afraid today's Russian analysts don't take the trouble to read and ponder, but one of his closest associates, Dmitry Trenin, who used to head up Carnegie Moscow, he's well respected on both sides

of the Atlantic. He came up with a piece just four days ago. It's very, very interesting. The title is, What Ukraine Should Look Like After Russia Wins. Okay. The future map of Ukraine. Ukraine as it existed on December 31, 1991 is gone. Crimea, Donbas, the two other regions have already returned to Russia through referendums. More likely will follow. Perhaps, get this, perhaps Odessa, Nikolaev, Kharkov, but not all of them. This is a quote. Not all of them. We will take only what can be integrated and defended. Expansion must be strategic, not emotional. So why haven't the Russians taken over Odessa yet?

Well, a bargaining chip. How about Kharkov? A bargaining chip. But Petrovsk, the same. And what was the other one you mentioned? Nikolaev. So these things are still in play. In other words, Putin has left some flexibility for Trump to come in and say, OK, will you agree that we can we could keep Odessa in the rump part of Ukraine so that Ukraine has access to the sea? It is not a basket case economically. Could you agree to that? And Putin will say, yeah, let's make it a jointly supervised, jointly ruled city. We've done that

before. That's historical precedent. That way Ukraine can survive. In other words, I don't think Putin is in this game to make sure that Ukraine doesn't survive, even if it's on the other side of the Dnieper. And he's made that clear by accepting, or Trudnin has made that clear. Here it is, the post-war scenarios. He puts three down, but puts four down, but the third is the one that they favor. Here it is. Divided Ukraine. The most realistic and advantageous outcome would be a

divided Ukraine. Anti-Russian forces could be pushed into the western regions under NATO protection, possibly splitting the country into a free Ukraine controlled by Poland, Hungary, and Romania, and then new Ukraine. So, meanwhile, the new Ukraine, stripped of ultra-nationalist elements, could be free from these toxic ideologies. This Ukraine would be smaller. Will the crazy nationalists accept a peace treaty under any circumstances that fails to return back to Ukraine the parts that they believe are Ukraine and which are Russian culturally? The crazy nationalists can't exist and prosper without weapons. That's why I think the Financial Times this morning is way out of it. I don't think Trump is going to provide any. He's already said he's not going to provide any weapons before now. He said he will or is a leaker, say, for the initial time. Without

weapons, it's up to the Europeans. Yep, Europeans aren't up to it. So it's just a matter of time before even the Azov battalion, even though these Nazi, there are two battalions now of real hard right folks, they're going to have to figure out what to do. Fold their tents like an Arab and silently steal away? Yeah, maybe to Poland or places that are more hospitable to this kind of thinking. But they're not going to be around in this new Ukraine. And the new Ukraine is what the Russians are hoping for and have the power to enforce. This Trenin article is, Trenin is a trendsetter.

He was the first one to ask Putin to start talking about low-yield nuclear weapons. That was over a year ago. First article was an article just like this by Trenin. So I think this is a good manifestation of how putin is coming at this it's going to be divided in the best instance otherwise all these other options are out of out of it and we don't need to wait says trennan we don't have to wait for the end of the year many patriotic ukrainians are ready to come back in from Russia and help rebuild the place. The future lies in a, not a hostile exploitative West, but in partnership with Russia.

Victory Day, victory in Ukraine must be a day of liberation for all of us, okay? Meaning the Ukrainians, the Russians, and the West, maybe a day like May 7th, May 8th, 1945, where people can take a deep breath and relax and say, okay, we're going to work this thing out logically now. One side has already won. We recognize that. We're going to do things that will make the other side feel that they're secure, that mutual security is what the game is. That's a great, great summary of your thoughts, Ray, and what your analysis is. Thank you for your time today. Thank you for all of your time during 2024. We don't have an Intelligence Community Roundtable this week because of the Christmas holidays. We will be

back on January 2nd. Thank you, my dear friend, for everything. Look forward to working with you again next year. Thanks. Happy New Year. Right back at you. Thank you, Ray. And coming up later today at 11 o'clock this morning, Larry Johnson at noon, Pepeobar. At three this afternoon, Max Blumenthal. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.