Judging Freedom - Ray McGovern: Will Ukraine Negotiate?

Episode Date: July 1, 2024

Ray McGovern: Will Ukraine Negotiate?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, July 1st, 2024. Ray McGovern will be here in just a moment on what are the circumstances, if any, under which Ukraine will negotiate for peace with Russia. 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. You have $100 in the bank.

It still shows $100, but $100 in the bank is now worth 24% less. Inflation has reduced all of your savings, all of your buying power and mine by 24%. And gold is largely immune from that. If you want to learn how gold will soon hit $3,200 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. Ray, welcome here, my dear friend, and thank you very much for your time. Is there a foreseeable path to peace in Ukraine short of total Russian military victory and annihilation of Kiev and the Ukrainian government? In my view, there's zero chance of that before November, when the presidential election takes place. Both sides will be playing for time to see what happens. And depending on what happens, we'll have a completely new situation. Until then, unless Zelensky goes off to one of his villas in Italy or elsewhere, it's just pretty frozen. And the U.S. wants to keep it that way

because the alternative is to complete a complete loss, and that would mean probably a complete loss in the election. The tragedy in Sevastopol, we all know that this could only have come about with American drones, with American satellites, with American technology, with some American or Americans who have a top-secret security clearance

delivering codes to whoever set off the missile. We also know that the Russian response has been stern language from President Putin and from Foreign Minister Lavrov. We know that Foreign Minister Lavrov called in the American ambassador to Russia and said, tell your buddies in Washington, I'm paraphrasing, that we are no longer at peace with you. How do you read this? We are no longer at peace. He didn't say we're at war, but he's the senior diplomat of the major countries in the world. Unlike our own chief diplomat, he chooses his words with great care, knowing how they'll be interpreted. How does Ray McGovern interpret that phrase, we're no longer at peace with you? Well, de jure, there's not a declaration of war,

we're not officially at war with Russia. But de facto, there we are, supplying weaponry and authorizing and making sure that the Ukrainians hang in there. So I think Lavrov has stepped up his rhetoric. I think that calling in the U.S. ambassador was a big move. But I also think that, as I've said earlier, Putin is so perspicacious. He is not going to let himself be provoked into doing anything he doesn't want to do. Okay. And so what I think back on is that terrible attack where hundreds were injured and killed at that concert just a couple months ago. They threatened retaliation then. Now, I think people need to realize retaliation came. I mean, they're taking out almost the

complete electrical power system in Ukraine. They're dropping three ton, like three ton bombs on military facilities and other depots. So I think that those that expected Putin to rise to the occasion, so to speak, and as some of the talk show hosts there in Moscow said, level Adyosha, level Kharkov, level Kiev. He's not going to do that. It's going to wait. It's going to wait. And meanwhile, his forces are actually doing an even better job now of moving forward toward the West and toward Kiev. And he has the options to kind of just whittle them down until the election, and he sees what happens. Our friend and colleague, Pepe Eskobar, tells us from Moscow, and our other friend and colleague Pepe Jeskobar tells us from Moscow, and our other friend and colleague Alistair Crook tells us from the hills outside of Rome, that the reaction of the Russian people to the events on the Sevastopol beach, it's now eight days ago, could only be described as fury. And you, of course, have been,

since you speak Russian, have been watching the Russian talk shows where a lot of that fury has come out. Is the Kremlin confronting a furious and vindictive public? I know it's not like the public here. It's more respect for authority there. But is this of concern to the Kremlin? I think it's of concern, but I don't think it's a determining factor on Putin's decisions. As I cited, the concert massacre, he didn't rise to the provocation at that time. I think he can face this down. And what was interesting in this case is that I agree with John Mearsheimer in concluding that wasn't that a deliberate attack on the beach. This missile was damaged and those bomblets fell mostly on the water and on the beach. Now, it seems to me that Putin had the option at that point to say, all right, okay, this is terrible. It's your damn fault, but it was an accident. Now, he didn't choose that option,

did he? He and Lavrov right off the bat said the U.S. is responsible, more responsible than Kiev itself. So that speaks volumes with respect to how much leeway Putin has to appear conciliatory or appear less than fully in charge and fully vindictive. Whether things happen on the ground. You know, there are all kinds of options. But I think, again, Putin is very cautious. He's riding high. Ukraine is going his way markedly. And so he's going to kind of keep his powder dry, in my view. Is there still pressure on him to end this war

dramatically, decisively, and soon? Pressure on Putin? Yes. Yeah, I don't think so. I think my reading of the Russian public is that they appreciate having him in charge. They have more confidence in him than I've seen the Russian populace have confidence in any Russian leader going back five decades. And so in my view, there will be lots of dissent, of course, but, and he does have to trim his sails. As I said before, he had the option of doing a little bit of excusing as this as an accident. But no, I don't think he's going to be provoked by the United States or by Ukraine. And I think that the Russian people respect him enough to say, all right, well, he does what he's doing.

We're winning in Ukraine. Let's keep calm. Who do the Russians negotiate with? I mean, Putin, Zelensky doesn't have any authority. Would they negotiate with the head of the military? Would they negotiate with some leader of parliament? Those two people are lawfully occupying their jobs. I mean, President Zelensky is just a glorified fundraiser at this point. Does the military even listen to him?

I don't think so. I mean, I think the military is being run by Siersky and those other generals. But it's really a conundrum, isn't it? Whom do the Russians speak to? Well, the real answer, of course, is they speak to Washington, okay? And marvel of marvels, just three days ago, the Russians made it clear that they would really like to have a call from our defense secretary. And lo and behold, Lloyd Austin called up his opposite number, Belousov, and what did they talk about?

I'm sure they talked about, look, what Russians can do in retaliation for this missile strike in Sevastopol, and how they'd really prefer not to do that, but, you know, those aircraft up there flying, those Global Hawks and other aircraft flying up there in the Black Sea. You really want to be careful of those because we put our Air Force on advisement to make sure that nothing untoward happens. You got that, says Belusovich. And I think that Austin being in touch with these people directly, that's a new element. It hadn't been the case since the 15th of March last year. So at least the fear of God was put in the White House, and the question was who they nominate to call the Russians and Blinken. I'll do it, and Tony, they don't talk,

they don't like you at all. And it fell to Austin also because it was primarily a military matter to be discussed. How would the American Secretary of Defense react to the Russian Minister of Defense saying, the next time we see one of your drones over the Black Sea, we're going to shoot it down. So don't even think about connecting to a satellite. I think that he would probably talk with his top military, General Jones, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and they would do the judicious thing. There is precedent for this. Back three years ago, the U.S. was sending two warships into the Black Sea. Putin personally told Biden, don't do that. And Biden turned them back.

So sensible decisions can still be made. In an election year, though, there's a new element of uncertainty injected into the equation. Is there significance? Well, maybe this is a political question. I don't know. To the fact that the first communication in the past year and a half between the Russian government, direct communication, and the American government was not Lavrov to Blinken, but between the two defense secretaries? I think there is, but I think it can be explained mostly by the fact that this was a military matter they were discussing. It's clear that they were discussing the Black Sea and what kind of global hawks run into new danger worthy

to fly that pattern, which allows them to direct and pinpoint and target those kinds of missiles, the attack on missiles. So I think that's most of the explanation, but they won't have anything to do with Blinken. Lavrov has made that clear. And I dare say their experience with Blinken has been very checkered, so to speak. What is the current relationship between Russia and China, as you understand it? And how does the United States understand that relationship, if at all? In a word, Judge, it's two against one. This is the bugger bear, the thing to be feared above all things, namely having your two well-armed nuclear adversaries joined at the hip, and that's how they are.

Thanks mostly to our geniuses, Sullivan, Blinken, you know, Noland, and the whole rest of them. So, yeah, it's two against one. If there's a flare-up, and I've been saying this for years, it didn't seem very persuasive till now, but if there's a flare-up in Ukraine or in Middle East and Russian forces get involved, you can expect actual threatening gestures and more in South China Sea, Taiwan Straits. That's how closely they're joined. And now, you know, sometimes I've been saying that it's two and a half against one. The half is North Korea, armed to the teeth, and now armed with a mutual defense treaty with Russia.

That's a new factor, and it indicates that the Russians want to play both East Asia and Ukraine, as well as watch closely over what happens in Gaza and elsewhere in the Middle East. Is this Chinese-Russian relationship, which you, in your typical McGovern way, succinct, courageous to the point, characterize as two against one. Is this on paper only or with respect to the military? Example, would the Chinese back the Russians in a war in the Middle East? The Middle East is a joint venture in terms of China and Russia. They both share a real interest in keeping calm in the Middle East. China depends so much on that oil coming out of those straits.

And Russia doesn't want Iran to get involved. So they share a common aim in the Middle East. Now, with respect to South China Sea, let's say the Philippines, goaded on by the neocons in Washington, start a firefight over those little islands in the East China Sea. What happens then? Well, China will retaliate. And the question is, will Russia do anything more than just saber rattle? At first, the answer would be no, nothing more than saber rattle. But think of it, Judge. Think of a commander-in-chief who has to worry about two fronts widely distant from the United States and the fact that the U.S. military really is not in shape now to handle a conflict on one of those fronts, much less two. Um, does the State Department understand what you just said or stated differently? Is Blinken's being ostracized from the certain parts of the diplomatic community, maybe because he's not perceived as a serious player, maybe because he's, uh, has that neocon

mentality that I won't even talk to them. Is that to the detriment of the United States? Of course it is. Now, people look at Blinken toadying off to talk with Netanyahu, giving him a little hug here, a little hug there, saying, please don't do this, and then Netanyahu does it. Netanyahu just yesterday saying, we're going to achieve all our aims in the Middle East. I don't care what you say, Tony. I don't care what you say, Jake Sullivan, or, so to vote,

Jake, what you say, Joe Biden. So, you know, this guy is seen to be a rather feckless player. And if you go back on the Sino-Russian issue here, they told Biden three years ago that when he talked with Putin, Biden had a really big card, and that was that the Russians were deathly afraid of the Chinese. And Biden told them, oh, we know you have a long thousands of mile border with China. China aspires not only to be a major economic, but political military power. And we know that China is squeezing Russia, okay? How do we know that? That's what Biden said

after he had the one-on-one with Putin. Now, nothing could have been farther from the truth. Where did Biden get that stuff? From Blinken and from Sullivan, who are reading out of textbooks that are three or four decades older, which I wrote some of the chapters in. Then it was true. Hello, catch up with reality, guys. That's how bad it is now. Let's move over to Gaza. How precarious is Israel's stability due to the Netanyahu leadership of the government as we speak? Until November, my guess is not very precarious. After November, God knows, or maybe not even God, you know. Netanyahu seems to be able to do what he wants, you know. And the notion that he's going against Hezbollah now, well, people need to see that as a crass attempt to get the U.S. involved militarily, directly, because he's going to run into trouble deep, as we used to say

in the comic books, okay? Trouble deep. And the only savior he can see on the horizon will be the United States. And it will be before the election. And what will Biden do? Well, we all know what Biden will do. And that is Benjamin Netanyahu's calculation. He's not often wrong on these political things. And I fear for what will happen if Biden, unlike Ronald Reagan, who got some good advice, look, get those troops, get those damn battleships from World War II, get them the hell out of the Mediterranean Sea. They've already killed 243 of our Marines. You want more to die?

Get them out. And that's what he did. Will Biden do that in an election year? I don't think so. And that's what Bibi Netanyahu is counting on. Biden may very well be hoping for an attack on American troops to change the dynamic of the election in which he can show himself as a wartime leader. I don't want to attribute the worst of motivations election in which he can show himself as a wartime leader. I don't want to attribute the worst of motivations to him, but we all know that when everything else fails, when you're going down the tubes politically, but you're still in charge, you take them to war.

Well, that's what Putin knows as well as you and I, Judge. And that's why I think he is hypersensitive to the notion of being provoked into doing things that he really doesn't want to do. I mean, he's a pinpricks in the gross scheme of things. And as long as he's prevailing in Ukraine, and as long as that trajectory continues, and there's absolutely no reason to think it will not continue because that aid that we're sending them is not going to get there until later this year, probably not even before the election, he's riding him. He's got these, as I said before, three-ton, right, three-ton bombs that are bombing the

hell out of military places and electrical power stations in Ukraine. God, somebody's got to stay in and say, well, look, is this not enough? Nobody's going to do that before the election unless somebody prevails on Joe Biden to spend more time with his family. Hunter needs him under these circumstances. Right, right. Getting back to Israel, Itamar Ben-Gavir is not only the head of one of the most extreme right-wing parts of Prime Minister Netanyahu's coalition, he's not only been convicted of terrorist behavior himself, he's the head of domestic security, the rough equivalent of the head of our FBI. In a rather incendiary statement, which is translated by artificial intelligence, but is understandable, which we'll play for you in a minute, he reveals that in his opinion, the Palestinian prisoners are overcrowding the jails. And instead of being set free, they should be shot in the head. He also reveals that the Knesset, which apparently has to pass a law to allow this and has to vote on it three times, has passed this legislation twice, and he's waiting for the

third time. Now, I've not seen this or heard this anywhere else, but here is Itamar Ben-Gavir on his desire not to feed, but to execute Palestinian prisoners. Unfortunately, and much to my surprise, I had to inquire recently whether the Nakveth have a fruit basket, as they either have fruit or don't have any and I say in my opinion they should be shot in the head to punish the terrorists, death and pass the Atzma Yehudit bill in a third delay but until then we will give them the minimum which is required by law, nothing more than that. Law apparently requires that the prisoners receive a piece of fruit a day.

And he's suggesting that instead of the fruit, they receive a bullet. Can this extreme behavior be attributed to Netanyahu as well? Netanyahu, even if he didn't want to abide by that kind of rhetoric, has to because of this coalition. Now, Ben-Gavir is the guy who said at the outset, we're going to deprive the Palestinian, we're going to deprive Hamas, he meant the Palestinians of course, of water, of food, of medical aid, we're going to deprive them of everything. That's a war crime, okay?

Food, hunger, starvation, that's a war crime. Now, this guy is now blessing the establishment of still more settlements, you know, by these settlers, just like our settlers who settled our West, right? Settlers in the West Bank. I was there when they started doing this, Judge. I used to watch the photographers showing these settlements going up, and I used to say, well, hey, that's illegal, isn't it? And, yeah, everybody bowed their heads, illegal, but those are the Israelis, okay? Now, the most the U.S. can say is that that's inconsistent with international law. And yet, what is it, 600,000, 700,000 settlers now in the West Bank alone?

I've been there. It's awful. These pristine, pure watered lawns on the top of hills, while down below the Palestinian villages have no running water and are destitute. That's what exists there. That's why people should go to the West Bank and see for themselves. Ray McGovern, always a pleasure, my dear friend. We won't be having the Intelligence Roundtable

because, of course, it's the 4th of July weekend. We'll all have a nice four-day holiday. But thank you very much for your time and for your thoughtfulness. Always appreciate it. Happy weekend, Judge. Right back at you. Coming up at 4 o'clock this afternoon, Eastern,

Larry Johnson, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.