Judging Freedom - [SPECIAL] - Best of Marathon: JACK DEVINE - A look back at Russia/Ukraine Analysis

Episode Date: December 12, 2024

[SPECIAL] - Best of Marathon: JACK DEVINE - A look back at Russia/Ukraine AnalysisSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

you Hello there everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here with Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, April 5th, 2022. It's about one o'clock in the afternoon on the east coast of the United States. My guest today for a return appearance is Jack Devine. Jack is a former acting CIA director of operations. He's today the president of something called the Arkin Group. He is one of the foremost authorities in the world on the nature of the intelligence community, particularly in the area of the world that we're very interested in. Jack's great book, great book is called The Spymaster's Prism. I don't think there's any national security secrets revealed in that book, but there's a lot revealed in that book that will fascinate the reader about the nature of intelligence and Jack's life when he was active in that community. Jack, my dear friend, thanks for coming back on Judging Freedom. It's a pleasure to be on.

Thank you for noting the book. You're absolutely right. I had to go through a rigorous review. But in the preparation of the book, I actually found out a lot of things that were in the public record that I didn't dream were in there. So it turned out to be quite interesting. That's good, because if it assessment of the plans of Vladimir Putin. I mean, does he plan to obliterate Ukraine? Is he going to pull back to the Donbass region in the east? Is this a war to the bitter end? Is it still popular in Russia?

Is it popular at all in Russia? Can you address these issues, Jack? Yeah. So I think, first of all, I think the intelligence community was spot on in terms of predicting. And I think even President Zelensky wasn't convinced they were going to invade until right the night before. So I think the intelligence community really nailed that. And that's one of the things that gets paid for, is early warning on an attack. So I give them high marks. Now, there you have multiple means of collecting intelligence, signals intelligence, communications, movement, overhead pictures. When you talk about what's in Putin's mind, now it gets really tricky and really hard.

So having been in those positions, I don't envy the job where satellites don't help you and intercepts are largely helpful. So what's in Putin's mind? And he has a much more restricted contained world than most national leaders. I mean, whether or not he was- What do you mean by that? What do you mean by he has a more restricted and contained world than most national leaders? I think COVID, I think he took COVID to heart, so to speak, and he limited his,

and you can see with his briefings, I mean, they're hard to imagine in an American setting where the President of the United States has people 25 feet away from him, right? Or at the end of the table, two generals, so in the COVID world. So I think he's limited his mobility, his friends. I think it's a narrow world. Although I do think the pundits, and I would include in there, you know, intelligence pundits and so on, may see it a little more restricted down to a handful of people.

I think it's more than that. But I think he has his own counsel. I think he has people that he trusts. You know, when you're a dictator, and that's what we have, an autocrat, we'll put a nicer spin on it. Is he getting an accurate picture of what's going on on the ground in Ukraine? Are we getting an accurate picture of what's going on? I think I'm not worried about us. I mean, we really are military is trained to provide, you know, accurate information. I'm not saying there isn't a good here, that you're there

the coordination process, democracies do. This is one of the strengths of democracy is that you have an exchange of views, the views are spread out over a broader range. When we don't do it, that's when we have political flaps, spy flaps is when you don't do the coordination. In autocratic systems, there's a genuine fear of telling the boss what he doesn't wanna hear. So I think he is more prone to getting, yes sir, yeah, that's a great idea, why not invade?

And I do think that on the ground, there's a fear that the report back that you're losing right because bad things can happen to you if you lose uh in a tough in that tough environment so i i don't think i think your assessment was off and i would say it could have been honestly off in other words they weren't yes manning they They all believed that somehow the Ukrainians were going to roll over and that it would be a cakewalk. And there is some case to be made for that. But clearly, the determination of the Ukrainians to fight, they missed that. Then they decided, and they came up with a strategy,

and this is the part where the war fighters and i would defer to them they had a grandiose strategy with an army that was far less effective than putin i think or anyone else realized i'm surprised at how how poor its logistics it's planning even the discipline within its troops and i guess we'll get the atrocities somewhere so i i think he spent a lot of money on high-end technology weapons and they didn't do enough on blocking and tackling and the training and logistics i ran the program to get the russians out of afghanistan for the cia at one point and the real heroes are the logistics people how do you make things move on time and you better pay a lot of attention.

You don't get big awards. You don't get on the front page of a magazine. But, you know, Ulysses S. Grant won the war against Lee by being a logistics expert. Right, right. So it's simplifying. But my point is, you know, there was a lot of poor preparation for this.

Now, they look like they're on their back heels. They really took a suffer to defeat. There's no way you can say that the first phase of this war was not a defeat for the Russians. They're stunned. They're frustrated. They're angry at themselves and everybody else that walks near them. But now they're regrouping, and I am concerned. They've now decided on a different strategy, which I think probably makes more sense.

In other words, go concentrate your effort in the east. So I don't think this war is over, and I think there's going to be a really tough fight down there, and it's a different fight than in Kiev. Does the imposition of American sanctions affect Putin's strategy at all? I think there's two issues. One, I think it's painful. Over a period of time, it's going to really grind down the Russians. I don't think it impacts on his strategy at all.

In other words, I think he is, and this often happens in American political decisions in the White House and elsewhere, that is people talk about oil and the important, but it really often is just straight politics and political. He wanted the Ukraine to make Russia great again and to add all the stands and everything else around it. One of the points we miss is the reason you want it is the real enemy is us. I mean, this is really a 1950 mindset. So he wanted it, and he wants it at almost any price. And that's what I think we need to realize, that as good as the sanctions are and you make them better,

he's going to hang tough. He's going to hang tough on the sanctions, try and find every way to evade it. So sanctions are not going to change the negotiations. What will change negotiations, I'm sorry, Judge, is the fighting on the ground. That's the only thing that is going to change negotiations. What do we do about the atrocities? Let's assume that they're real. That picture that's been all over the world. I don't know if it's a man or a woman. You can't see the face with hands tied behind the back and a bullet in the brain. And many more like it. It's gut-wrenching.

So what's being said widely now is that it's not just in the place, more general. If that turns out to be the case, then what you have is what I alluded to earlier, an army that isn't disciplined and trained and, you know, was orders given? Probably not.

But was the lack of training, understanding of how you occupy areas, because what you have are troops that are so frustrated, so angry, and they're in a defeat mode that they do extreme measures and they're not thinking about the consequences. And the consequences are huge. Because once you commit atrocities, it puts you in a unique category of countries. And you become a genuine untouchable, right?

In other words, how do you have Putin at dinner if he's responsible or the Russian generals? So I think the world will be tremendously repulsed at this. And I think they already are. I mean, I think it's changed the dynamic about fighting to save the Ukrainians. This is a really evil government, if you will, if it is government-sponsored. But I think it's really government shortcomings in the sense that there weren't any checks and balances on this, you know, and their approach to war and looking at Ukrainians, you don't do this unless you really hate Ukrainians. All right, so does he think that he captures Ukraine, those wheat fields, they're not destroyed, become his.

Zelensky flees to Geneva. Does he think he can, and you just said you don't think so, return to the international scene? Never. He shrunk the day his army walked into Ukraine. In other words, he was viewed as a political force in the world, a powerful guy. Now he'll be a shrunken, desperate criminal

who nobody's gonna want to deal with. I mean, he is now in a very weakened position. Having said that, don't write his obituary because despots can hang on. Look how long Castro hung in, or, you know, Chavez and Madero or Assad. You know, we're always predicting they're going in, you know, 24 hours or whatever. But he is a much weakened leader who could never, how can he go to Versailles in a tuxedo and have champagne with the g20 or

something so i i think he's he's finny there's no comeback in other words he can hold on and grind russia down and you know subjugate it to the horrible uh repression you grind ukraine down no russia i don't misspeak i I think he's going to have a bigger problem in Ukraine than he'll have over the long run in Russia. But in Ukraine, I think if its generals are talking, they're going to say, look, occupying it and controlling the whole country is probably beyond the pale. But maybe we can, it reminds me of Afghanistan, we'll take a couple of the big cities and we'll hold it. But, you know, we're going to have an insurgency and it'll be hit and run and it'll go on.

How exposed is Putin to being removed from office by either the intelligence community, which you told me has its own little army. He must know about that he's a former member of the intelligence community or by his senior military people a lot of autocrats are walked out the door right i mean take it to the chopping block but i think that's less likely here i i think the people may be unhappy but in order to remove a leader, if you're going to have a conspiracy, it requires multiple people. And they're hard to organize.

And I think he's got a grip on his own institutions. In other words, there's enough fear in there that if Billy tries to reach Harry and if someone finds out they're dead, they're gone, they disappear. So I think the classical coup is not likely at all. And I think what is more likely, in my view, is that the system, let's say after some settlement, let's hope it's one that is not positive for Putin, once his army leaves, then Russia still has to live with the aftermath of it.

And I think the citizenry gets less happy, the government disgruntled people get happy. But the ability to organize a coup, I think is probably limited. What I would predict more likely is that someday there's a demonstration that gets bigger and out of hand sooner, and the military and the police just in an uncoordinated way decided they're not going to suppress it and the next right you have a changing government so i think it's a longer those that are

waiting for palace coup now i could wake up tomorrow morning i would not be surprised if he was taken out tomorrow right but i don't really feel that that's what's going to happen or that there's a group of generals so disgusted and uh but the country once the country is considered to be you know a lame country you think the Chinese want to be in bed with them forever who's going to be their ally you know be strictly commercial ties it'll be everybody in that country will be looked upon as a second, third rate person. Eventually, it grinds on the society. We haven't really had a dictator who's waged a war like this in Europe since Hitler. He had no moral compass. Putin obviously has no moral compass. To whom can he turn?

What can he say to a crowd to get them to cheer that will justify what he's done to capture some plots of dirt in Ukraine? One thing that surprises me is that given the world we live in, the social media, I would have predicted that everybody in Russia knew the full story, right? And that he would try disinformation, but it would only be effective around the corner. But every indication that I can see is that there's a large number of Russians that actually believe it's disinformation. The atrocities are a Ukrainian plot. And so, the disinformation

part of this, he might be able, I don't know how it's possible, but he might be able to convince a significant number of the Russian people that he was put upon, and that it was the Americans were behind it and so on. All I'm saying, the judges, that wears down over time. They had demonstrations in Berlin, so and so, I said, well, that's a paid demonstration, right? In other words, it's one that's organized and, you know, it's not spontaneous. I mean, I don't know how you can sit and look at objective, any form of Western media and not come to the conclusion that what happened is evil. The fact that he invaded, saying that Ukraine was going to pick on him and invade it, he into how can you how can you say that with a straight face but he did and a lot of people in his own country seem to have signed up to it

amazingly i don't think it's so much in the urban areas it is in the countryside but even there they get the numbers that they say he has a number of people in the cities have to think that you know russia is not the instigator but i think no matter any objective view of this thing has to look at putin as basically having undertaken an evil enterprise here and is there a energy stunt is is just dreadful okay is there a view in the State Department or the American intelligence community that they want to bring about or use this in an effort to oust Putin, to bring about regime change? Was President Biden speaking out of school, or was that just some loose thought in his head when he said regime change? This guy can't be allowed to stay in office. Some of my libertarian friends know that I'm one, and some of your former colleagues say that the State Department has been manipulating for regime

change since this guy took over in the year 2000. So on 2 March, I had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. And I said, Putin has sowed the seeds of his own demise, right? Let him fall of his own weight. Keep the pressure, maximum pressure on him. But do not meddle inside. Because the chances of it getting cocked up and turned upside down where people are saying here are the Americans interfering regime change in our country and I question the ability I mean

listen you're talking to a practitioner look the ability to have orchestrating that type of regime in a major state, I would really counsel that this is unwise, that you strengthen all of the economic issues, you make the Ukrainian fight as strong as you can on their side, but just keep them boxed in and his own people will bring an end to the Putin era. Jack, are we fighting? We will fail and it will backfire. Are we fighting a proxy war right now? This isn't one of our choosing. I mean, this is really Putin decided to go in.

There is no, I see no indication that, you know, we wanted to have a proxy war. But at this point, I don't see where we have much of a choice that, you know, he goes in and takes over Ukraine. He then becomes a more dangerous threat to us. So I think we have to be in there. Why is he a dangerous threat to us, to the United States of America, if he succeeds in Ukraine? Well, this is a little bit, even beyond the book, I was pretty tough on him. But I didn't see him as intrinsically evil. I thought he was just a hard-nosed intelligence operator. And I think at the core, there's something fundamentally evil in his behavior. But the second thing is,

I didn't realize how intense. I really believe, and I've warned everybody in the book, that he was trying to rebuild the Soviet Union. But I kept saying, we need to reset with them. And now I realize we're the real enemy. Now there was a guy who defected, they called him Comrade J. And I think 2004, I could be off a little bit on the year. But Commander J, when he joined the KGB, they asked him, what was the number one target? U.S., NATO, and China in that order. So when he joined in the 80s, that's what the target was. What was the ranking priority for the KGB in 2004?

And he said, well, it was the U.S., NATO, and China. Now, China has changed a bit. But what I'm saying is his overall, and it's hard to realize this where we sit, he really believes the United States is out to get him. I mean, and that he has to fight like Stalin. But I want to get back to what you said earlier. So that's why it's not about Ukraine. It's about us. How are we harmed if he takes over Ukraine?

Well, the question is, will he stay there? In other words, I've been successful, why don't I take the Baltics? Why don't I, you know, look Poland, you know, what's wrong with Poland? I might be able to, you know, there are a lot of Russians in Poland. So I think he becomes

first of all the gdp let's be practical gdp russia is like spain or france all through history people said if you have ukraine now you become a player so i think he wants to strengthen russia becomes you know his nuclear weapons if you took him, it'd be a second-rate country. But with the Ukraine, he'd have to be in the league with the big boys, and that's why he wants that. So if he wasn't aggressive towards us, what's the problem? But I'm saying he really wants to have a fight with us, and I think I've been slow to coming to the conviction that it's not just making himself strong. He really thinks that we need to be taught a lesson.

If his tank commanders misread their GPS devices and send projectiles across the border into Poland and they destroy American military equipment there, maybe even harm some American personnel. What do we do? I think we fire right back. When I was doing the Afghan War, there was a discussion about the Stinger. If you put it in, it would start World War III. And very senior people in the intelligence world believe that. I didn't believe that. I thought, look, what are they going to do? And I feel that way. I've been vacillating at least the beginning on the MiGs.

But, you know, now we're putting tanks in, and we should. Now I believe we should have put the MiGs in, okay, because what was he going to do? So here's the question. If he does that in any NATO country or hits any American, we must respond. And what is he going to do? I mean, you have to ask it. You say, well, he's not going to use it.

You've got to punch him back. And he does not have an army to match what he's now demonstrating. He does not have an army that matched Western armies. It's not sophisticated enough. It's communications, it's coordination. So if he wants to try that, he is getting the worst advice the head of state can get to think that he can do that and walk away. It won't happen. Jack Devine, former acting CIA director of operations.

It's always a pleasure to hear from you, Jack. I hope you'll come back again soon. Always glad to, Judge. Thank you for that. Thank you, Judge Napolitano. Thank you, Jack. Judge Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, October 19th, 2022.

It's about 3.20 in the afternoon here on the East Coast of the United States. My guest is a well-known regular guest on Judging Freedom. He is former senior management at the Central Intelligence Agency and a longtime personal friend, Jack Devine. Jack, it's always a pleasure. Welcome here. Thank you. Can the Russians lose this war in Ukraine? Well, let me equivocate. They will lose. They will lose. They can't win. That's not an equivocation. That's even more forceful. You're saying they can lose. You're saying they can lose, you're saying they will lose. Judge, I was being facetious. I was saying in a declarative statement, they will lose. They cannot win. Can you explain, please?

Well, I keep referring to it. I mean, there's a lot of things I wrote that I hope no one ever finds, right? But on March of this year, right after the Russians went in, I got an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. And the top line says, Putin has sowed the seeds of his demise. And I'm hanging in there. This is one that I'm proud of. And it says, what he did, when he crossed, there's no road back. There's no win. You're not Genghis Khan. You're not going to be able to run over the Ukraine, driving it into the dirt.

You're in a different point in time. And so what has happened, it's actually more drastic than I imagined when I'd written it, and that is he's actually, it's not that he can't sustain against an insurgency like they tried in Afghanistan. He can't win the traditional part of it. He can't even get control over before it starts to crumble. It crumbled when he went across. I didn't realize the poor condition of his military forces, their training, their leadership, communications, and the state of their equipment.

And the other thing that I was talking to someone earlier today, ideas matter. Struggles between major powers and ideologies, ideas matter. And I think if you scrape everything away, the against communism, defeat against fascism, is because democracy and the free world is a better idea. What is Putin's idea? He doesn't even have one. He's not a communist. He's not a, well, might have fascist tendencies,

but he doesn't have an idea. It's me and I'm trying to capitalize on national, I don't think you can beat the West. He underestimated how quickly we grasped our idea when he invaded. NATO, everybody, it's about the way the world's going to be. We're not really confused on that aspect of it all right jack you have used the phrase the west excuse me and you've used the plural we yeah have we started world war iii is this putin against the west it just appears to be putin against ukraine yeah let me let me clarify my statement because

i think that really i should have said i'm not sure i'm not, I should have said the West and the allies, Japan, and, you know, whatever countries. Okay, I get it. But have we wittingly or unwittingly begun a war of the West, whoever that is, against Russia? Well, what I would say is we were asleep, you know, comfortable with the idea. Didn't think our idea was being threatened, right? So it was asleep. It wasn't imperialism. It wasn't like we're going to go and take Russia

and convert it into our world. I mean, people have to look at it. Russia invaded a country, a neighboring country that had a Democratic city. You know, maybe he didn't like the type of it, but it was. They had elections and, you know, you could walk around the streets and do what you want. He invaded it without provocation. Now, he says all these wild things that he was being threatened. Russia was being threatened by a country without nuclear weapons.

I mean, really, a country of smaller size. So it isn't, but when he crossed, then it became we again. In other words, why he was challenging the behavior that we signed up a large part of the world around a orderly democratic free society, then you don't invade each other's countries willy-nilly. Did the CIA participate in the overthrow of the popularly elected government in Ukraine in 2014? Well, I have no definitive answer, but I will tell you, I'd be amazed if they did. Well, isn't that what they do? Well, yeah, but my even lecturing, like you see Good Honey up there, you see Spymaster, you do it very selectively.

In fact, you're really onto a hot topic. You know, why don't we do it in Russia? Why don't we destabilize Iran? Look at the opportunities that's falling apart. And Jack Devine said in that wonderful op-ed, don't do that inside, because you're not as good as you think you are. And that isn't how it's done. In other words, you don't decide you're going to go in somewhere and overthrow a government. The first step is, you have to sit down and say, is there anybody in that country that happens to think the way i think and what what what does it look like how big are they how strong are they and what is the idea that you're pushing right so my point is and i was very explicit in the op-ed

do not run some covert action operations some guy who's never been in you know who's been in the agency but never touched one let this guy will fall of his own weight if you let him keep doing what he's doing however just one fast thing understood that doesn't mean we don't do anything we're as strong as we can be don't meddle inside his country he'll be able to rally people and we will pick some gucci guy if it's not a real Russian and he'll get slaughtered. So I'm saying let him fall in his own way. He is going to fall. There's no road back. Is it tomorrow or next month? I can't tell you. But we don't. CIA should not. Do you?

I know you have a different audience than usual, and I enjoy their audience, but CIA's role is not the overthrow of government. It should go at it reluctantly, and I'm an enthusiast for action. All right. I will not read to you what the audience is saying. People told me they have wild ideas about me. You know that I regard our friendship with gratitude and joy, and I deeply appreciate you being

on the show, and you do bring out a lot of strong opinions from a lot of people. I welcome that. That's why this show is fun. I don't feel like talking to people that are going to say, Jack, we agree with you. Let's have it out there. Let's have it. Okay.

Do you accept the argument that Putin cannot keep his job or his life or his liberty if he loses and therefore will do anything within his power to win? Well, no. Let's go to no. No. Okay, maybe that helps you a little. If he is losing, there's an art. Today, I do not see him in jeopardy. But the grains of sand are moving under his feet, right?

And the more he looks like a loser, the more he is a loser, the more his friends, his so-called fair weather friends will will disappear before he gets to that desperation he's not the only man in russia that's going to be looking at it and when he gets into that really last round of the fight right and his manager's sitting there in a corner he's bleeding and can't get can't move his legs anymore the towel comes that means before he gets to the point where you might consider a nuclear weapon he will be gone he's not going to have enough support to get to that but that's jack devine's effect you know is he that's because he's still is he still secure in his job.

That is, does he still have the support of the intelligence community around him, the elites around them, and the average Russians in the street? Well, there are different groups stating the obvious. Yes, of course. I think the day he crossed the border, this is Jack's unscientific opinion, one third of the generals

said, well, yeah, it's worth a shot. We don't like the Ukrainians. Another third said, look, I'm a good soldier. I don't like this idea. We'll go along. Another third said, this is crazy. This is a bad idea. But I'm going to keep my mouth shut because if I tell anybody, I don't know whether they're

going to report it and they're going to take me out. So there's a third that probably didn't want to do this in the upper command. Intelligence, whatever it is, the more you experience intelligence, the dumber this idea looks no matter where you're sitting. So I would say today those numbers are changing. The only thing that hasn't changed is they're still not talking to each other. That gets to your second point about the people on the street. I don't see a, he can be thrown out tomorrow, I'll give your audience that, but I don't see it.

It'll be a surprise, but not a total surprise. More likely what I think you have to see is this population, this popularity in the, among the people fading, and that there's continuing problems it doesn't start based on my experience in studying of the subject the real coup plotting that doesn't start until really late in the game and I have been I was in Chile when I MD was overthrown okay and there's a lot of popular nonsense out there. Your audience is really, the CIA, you know, there was a dumb attempt over stopping from becoming president. The CIA said,

don't do it. And the president of the United States, Richard Nixon said, give it the college tribe. What happens is everyone forgot that that day we got an instruction saying no coup plotting. But there was a coup and it came in 73. CIA, as late as August, still didn't think there would be a coup in that country. Now, my wife was the first person that got notice, official notice, there was going to be a coup.

When did the generals decide to overthrow again? I'll tell you the day. It was in June. And that was the day a group of six tanks, I think it was six, pulled in front of the mayor. They were drinking all night. They pulled in front. And they were going to overthrow the six guys. And the commander of the chief of the armed forces went out and said, listen, you're a soldier. Get back in your tank and leave. I'm telling you, I was part of the group that said, well, that's it. How are they ever going to overthrow Randy? This is it. You know, in the

day, what happened? They left that meeting and that's the day the coup plot started because he said, our military institution is crumbling. We will take charge. Let's come back.

Let's come back to Ukraine. How much of a setback for the Russians was the damage to the Crimea bridge and were the CIA or MI6 involved in the planning of the explosions that took down a portion of that bridge? To the best of my knowledge, the answer is no.

What I would say is, I think one of the major contributions that people fell asleep on is that the friendly nations like the United States, publicly it's in the press, and I believe the press, of course, that a lot of training took place. The best army on the face of the earth, right? Because we've been fighting 20 years. What do you see a difference of? They're using tactics, but they didn't need us to plan that attack. People keep underestimating Ukrainians.

It's not like they've never been in a fight. Russia talks about the great Russia. Well, Ukrainians are the ones that stand down in Stalingrad. It wasn't the Russians. So my point is these are people who fight. So I think that's the case. Your question about the Crimea is important because I've been saying privately for a long time, you know, Putin's out there waving the nuclear weapon. That is psych warfare. The importance of attacking the Crimea and bringing the fight there, you can't underestimate how that impacted in the mind of the Russians,

how it impacts the mind of its leadership, its military, and how it impacts on the Ukrainians. So I think it was a huge, huge thing. And, you know, I'm not ruling out that they take back my force. The Nord Stream loser, that's when the plot starts. You've got to pinpoint your day. In other words, there will be an event, and that's why I wanted the chili thing. Today, when an institution, their personal institution,

that's when they start plotting. Who damaged the Nord Stream pipeline? That's a good question. I polled a lot of people, right? I'll tell you what my poll was. It was like five for the Russians, 50%. Another three were for the Brits. And then there was one for the Ukrainians

and one for the US. The point is- Who are these characters? Retired intelligence? No, I'm going to be fair. I'm a cosmopolitan, cross with people. They weren't all New Yorkers either. So my point was, when you get done with it,

it's kind of, when you come out, I mean, why would we do it? I can tell you why we wouldn't do it. We wouldn't be able to coordinate it with Congress and everywhere else. The Brits wouldn't do it because they felt like, I got to tell NATO, I got to tell the United States, right? So there's bureaucratic reasons why not. And then there's the strategic reasons why not.

Jack, MI6 and the CIA will do whatever they want. MI6 is not going to involve the parliament. All they're going to do is tell their pattern. Look, I see we have to go out and have a bottle of cognac so I can straighten you out on the CIA. You have no idea. I had a lawyer on my right shoulder when I became chief of the United States of America, and I suddenly got like three stars. They said, well, I'm going to introduce you to your personal lawyer. He's going to read everything you write. Okay, only in America will I tell you that happens. So my point is the CIA doesn't do what it

wants. And this is something, and I want to stop kidding around. There are hundreds of covert action operations that have been run since the beginning of the CIA's formation. And it's been a controversial part, but every president,

starting with Truman. But every one of them have been approved by the President of the United States. You cannot find one covert action operation in its history. I have not, and I've studied this, found one that wasn't true. After the 70s, and I don't know whether it was 76 or 74, there is no covert action operation that takes place that is not signed by the President of the United States. And the Congress... Did Joe Biden authorize American intelligence to attack the Nord Stream pipeline? Putin's not going to attack his own pipeline. That would mean he was in the city. I'm just going to tell you, what would happen is,

if that was the United States, the President of the United States signed that order personally, and Congress, that secrecy would have to have been briefed within 72 hours. You're talking about the... What do you think the chances are that that could be a secret? Okay. You're talking about the Gang of Eight, which is the minority majority leader of both houses and the chair and ranking member of both intelligence committees.

Those are the people that would have to be briefed and briefed in a secure scale. Right. Probably those briefings. What is the... It was a different world. Let me get this straight. Congress, Republicans, Democrats actually could work together on Cold War items. There was a unanimity of how, you know, there might be a experience, don't come from those meetings. They come from the White House, from the executive branch, because somebody has an accident, right, and somebody wants to. Congress is actually pretty responsible in the area you're talking about.

In my experience, despite all the misgivings people have about it, I have a lot of respect for that process. A few minutes ago, you mentioned Japan. Is Japan providing assistance to the Ukrainians, Ukrainian military? Japan's not in NATO. No, but I said earlier, and that's why you rightly corrected me. When I say we, I would include the Japanese. I would include all of our allies that supported us in the past. So in the case of the Japanese, I don't know of any specific weapons systems that they have

that would be unique that would go there, but they're voting their support. I mean, as far as I know, but I've heard nothing that would lead me to believe that they need to, but I think if asked, they probably would. What is your view of President Biden's recent belligerence, both towards President Putin and President Xi? I mean, do we really want to get into a land war trying to defend Taiwan

from the biggest military in the world? Well, we could talk style and then we could talk geopolitics, right? And if I were talking geopolitics and I was sitting down to national security in the old days when I could sit down with Democrats and Republicans in Congress, you would say, look, and this is a really important point.

Putin from his childhood believed we were the main enemy and we were out to get his Russia. In other words, he is a diehard anti-West, anti-American. He can smile at those cocktail parties, but people really misread him, okay? So being tough with Putin, I mean, I love to mention my book in this context. I was too nice to Putin. I said he was a lousy strategic guy, but he was a good tactician. I take that back. He's not a good tactician, but he is a thug.

So I'm not too worried about the political niceties of talking to him. She has a different problem. Here you have a major economic power. We have to get along on a lot of things of interest. Putin is small potatoes on where the world is going, economically, politically. So we need to keep working to find accommodation. But she, this isn't people really, you know, I talked about communists, but died everywhere. It died in a certain way in

China, but they are communists. The structure is communist. It's a very, but they've opened and used Western techniques, but they're not looking for freedom. So, you know, the question of how nice you want to be the Xi, but there's a practical side to that. When a guy declares war on your allies and declares war on you, in essence, yeah, you get a different story. So there are two places. I think Teddy Roosevelt had it right, you know. Speak softly and carry a big stick. What Joe Biden is, Joe Biden is not speaking softly, not about Taiwan.

And I don't think he has the sticks necessary to defend Taiwan. I mean, the Chinese Navy will blockade the island. We won't even be able to get troops and material there. Listen, Judge, Putin thought, those Ukrainians, I'm going to roll right over them, right? Anytime you try and take an island, ask the people that did the Bay of Pigs. Islands are really hard to do, okay? We didn't get to this. That's not cause for it.

They're not going to roll over taiwan okay uh i think if i were i think the chinese i don't want to miss say more than i know i think they looked at what happened to putin and they said well we have a 20-year plan now we had a five-year plan now we have a 20-year plan for taiwan i think they're reevaluated it's modern war look at this one i mean people have to get back and ask her said how are we going to fight wars? Where's the Air Force? No, it's drones, it's javelins, it's a different battle out there. All right.

What are the big battleships and submarines going to do in Taiwan? Before we conclude, Jack, let's circle back to Ukraine. Does Putin seem to think that if he's vicious enough attacking Ukraine infrastructure and utilities, power, heat, water, that NATO and the United States will either stop getting involved or force Ukraine to a negotiating table is that his theory he knows he cannot win on the battlefield so therefore he's he's not gonna he's not a quitter by the way this is he's gonna he's gonna double down he's betting that we're weak in other words he's betting just like you've described cold winter we're not going to stay the duration we're sprinters he's the long distance runner okay uh and you look at what he's doing he's firing these rockets it's like the old days

when we've had a threat we shoot rockets out into the desert right and said oh there take that so he's he destroys buildings and civilians he's not winning anything on the battlefield it's it's psychological in other words why do I wave uh nuclear weapons because people start cringing and getting work he's working to break our will psychologically he cannot go to the battlefield when the flowers start popping when the seeds pop in the spring I want to see him sit down and analyze how how right was him and i'm going to tell you you're going to see nato you're going to see united states still supporting the ukrainians you see them still fighting so you better come up you better have a plan b jack one of these days we'll have a plan b and we'll uh talk about history i'm fascinated with the bay of pigs uh and its domestic ramifications and

the overthrow of salvatore allende we'll get to that read my books i've said i've sent you autograph and i think i put them in gold the leaf didn't i your books yes yes spell out under what conditions this is the irony of it i'm an advocate of the CIA. I mean, they didn't ask me, they don't pay me. They'd like me to go away. But I'm an advocate for the mission. I'm an advocate for the use of covert action before you put a big army on the ground. But I am meticulous in saying, don't do this as a lark in some movie script. This is serious stuff. And these are the 10, 15 principles. So I'm going to leave you in deep suspense about what they are in your audience. And instead of your audience getting agitated about my-

My audience is agitated. I suggest they read a little bit more. They read and they know my personality. know they know i like to stir the pot yeah well i like to start them but they like to start but so do i so we have a good group here together all right jack devine it's a pleasure you're a gentleman we'll we'll do it again soon thank you man listen i'm telling your audience god bless bless America because you are allowed to have these views that you have. Cherish them and I welcome them. I'm not in spirit, fire away, have yourself a good time

because God bless America and our freedoms. God bless you too, Jack. Until the next time, Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Judge it well. Judge it well. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, June 6th, 2022. It's about 2 o'clock in the afternoon on the east coast of the United States. My guest today is a Judging Freedom regular, Jack Devine. Jack spent his entire career in the Central Intelligence Agency and knows a great deal about Russian influence in the United States and what

our intelligence community knows about what the Russians are up to. And he's written books about it. His great book is called The Spymaster's Prism. Once you start the book, you can't put it down. Jack, it's always a pleasure. Thanks. And welcome back to Judging Freedom. Well, thanks for having me back on, you can always enjoy it thank you so uh you and i have spoken several times during the course of the uh uh russian uh invasion of ukraine and each time uh you are of the view that the russians will win and of course you you can't always tell how it's going at the time we talk but what's your view today about 102 103 days into the war well i actually i didn't think they were going to uh win in the sense of occupying and um what i wasn't sure of is on the

eve of when they invaded and just how vigorously the ukrainians would fight but i called a very good friend of mine who's well wired there and he said, Jack, we're going to fight. So I actually believe they're going to fight. That they would be as successful as they have been is a real surprise. And that the Russians have been so feckless on the ground in terms of having an army and logistics. I mean, the first 70 days was pretty abysmal. And I think it was a shock to the world, including those that watch it closely in the intelligence world.

So I've actually been thinking for a long time that you end up with a stalemate, and maybe not a ceasefire, but the Russians will, they haven't done it yet. There's a point where they moved everything out of Kiev, and now they're down in the eastern corner. They're going to push as hard as they can, and the Ukrainians are going to push back as hard as they can.

And I think once they get to that point, they can't go any further, and the Ukrainians can't push them back anymore. Then I think you end up with a stalemate. I don't think at this point it will be a stalemate i don't think at this point it'll be a negotiated settlement because i don't think either party can negotiate but you can tone down without a treaty in other words you just stop firing as many rounds and you get off the air a little bit so i i don't think what is part the only thing i would say to finish that off i don't think we're too far out i i think before thanksgiving if not before

labor day i think they're going to be near stalemate you can see certain things falling into place there's a limit to how far the russians can go and how far the ukrainians can what does president putin need in order credibly credibly to claim victory by credibly, credibly to claim victory? By credibly, I mean so that enough people in his own government believe him that he'll still be the president of Russia a year from now. I don't think he can. In order to do that, I think the Kiev government would have to fall, and he would have to take the capital and most of the country and i there's no indication whatsoever that he has that capability so i think he'll declare a victory that he has the eastern corner the two provinces provinces there but that's as far as it goes and frankly he had

unofficially sort of claimed that earlier so i i don't see us within grasp anymore and i think your point about a year i wrote this op-ed that we talked about on march 2nd saying his days were number i didn't mean literally next five days but his days and he's over i mean he cannot come back as a powerhouse in this country around the world and it's just a question of time it'll be his own people that bring him down so a year a year is not a bad bet. I wouldn't take that. I mean, that's not unrealistic for where... Is he forever going to be an outcast in the European community or will he at some point come back into their good graces? How can he come back after the atrocities? other words if it was if there was a war in which it was fought traditionally and it was

evenly balanced you know you could say well he could he could we could work his way back after the atrocities in the vicious bombing and he can't work about who's going to have their picture taken but i mean really i mean it's it's he's his own country, I think he's going to have a hard time developing the stature. Before he went in, it was his high point. That was my thesis. It remains my thesis. Is it normal in a limited war like this, by limited, I mean limited to one country versus another, this isn't World War II. For one side to lose 11 generals, is that a coincidence? Or are the Ukrainians, perhaps with assistance from the West, targeting the Russian senior military leadership?

Robert R. Well, 11 is a significant number. There's no question about it. But they have a different structure. Their structure doesn't give the captain, the major, and the lieutenant colonel a lot of authority. So if you don't pass down the authority, then their general has to get closer to where the action is. And I think that distinguishes their model from our model. The second thing is, and I'm not professing inside information,

but the Ukrainians have been training. And actually in the book, I go into this. I said, you know, and that was 18, 2018. They are not the Army of 2014. They've learned some lessons. But, you know, they may not have received all the sophisticated weapons and the amount, but they clearly have been received all the sophisticated weapons and the amount, but they clearly have been trained to fight this kind of war, where I think the Russians

were still fighting, going through the bulge type of war strategy. So I think that a lot of their techniques, I don't think the Russians were ready for it, frankly. There's no indication that they had any idea of what they're again some point we should talk about the stinger just because of its I want to make a point about well I I do want to talk about what modern weapons change the battlefield okay I do want to talk about those weapons in this context uh Putin has warned the West uh that he may do something if we he's obviously saying this for consumption in the united states continue to arm the ukrainians what is this threat and what could he

possibly do well what he could do is talk loud and he will get reset he will get reception from people in the West and the East that are prone and fearful. Let me put it this way. I told you last time, I think I made a mistake because I sort of went along with the idea that, well, maybe we shouldn't put those nigs in. And the weather was disgusted in Poland. I thought, wait a minute. Why not? What's he going to do? He's going to invade Ukraine?

He's going to invade Polandraine he's going to be in poland but after what he just showed i mean i think it's a lot of a lot of bluster now he'll fire off rockets and do damage and blow up buildings but he doesn't he has no pushback he can't he can't make progress in ukraine how's he going to make it in germany and poland i mean so you know what is he going to do i mean i i think we, I think we have to be careful because he threw out the word nuclear weapons, right? Everybody is panicking. Really? You're gonna fire one off?

What do you think is gonna be left of the Kremlin? It would be the end of my civilization as we know it. But so I think we have to take the stress. He is a good propagandist given that and disinformation the russians have been working at it much more effectively we really don't engage very much americans are they don't like this information jack what have we gained by 56 billion dollars uh in cash and in military equipment sent over to Ukraine well I think I would reverse the the issue in the sense of what would have happened if we hadn't provided either

the training or weapons the war would have been over in a month right and we would be looking at the thing that people really need to study is just how important Ukraine is in the history of Russia. Every Russian leader has lusted after Ukraine because it's the red basket of many ways of Europe, but it's also, you know, industrial power. It had nuclear weapons not too long ago. But a point that I would make is Russia, again, its GDP is like Spain or France. With the Ukraine, and if Ukraine were fully developed, you know, you would have a much stronger – the Germans would have a hard time with it. In other words, in terms of – that would be a much more formidable threat in Europe. And the big thing that has emerged from this, Judge, is I don't think Putin, as bad as I viewed him as a danger, he's worse than I thought.

I'm sure he didn't like Spymaster's prison because it was pretty tough on him. But he has shown himself to be ruthless you know an imperialist in real old fashioned style so i wouldn't want to be sitting in hungary estonia poland in fact i think he'd be aggressive in latin america and maybe even on our own in our own backyard what what is the american intelligence community uh telling the president and the people around him about Putin today? His mental stability, his physical health, his stability in office? I don't know what exactly they're saying, but but I would be surprised if they are not far apart in our assessment of A, the danger he represented, danger he still represents, and his mindset.

And I think probably they and me have probably sharpened our concerns about his ability or willingness to take light and large numbers and seem to talk too much about that. So I think on that score, about him and his stability, my guess is they're going to come out the same way, which is he's over. When it all crumbles, who knows? But he is shrunk. He is shrunken as a threat to the world. I mean, in the sense of his bluster.

I mean, who's going to be afraid of him after you see how his army acted in a neighboring country, and he still couldn't get it done, let alone trying to transport it somewhere else. I mean, amazing. So my assessment isn't too far apart I hope it isn't do we have boots on the ground in uh Ukraine well I will say this we do not have any uniformed American troops on the ground. That would be my guess. But that you have really smart advisors that are Americans, I'll bet you do. So how- I would hope that we would leave you away for the lens support. Look, I'm a big advocate. Book one,

book two, I talk about covert action. And that is those types of things you do without putting boots on the ground and armies. And that's what I did in Afghanistan with many of my colleagues. I mean, I don't mean me, but a generation of people from the agency. But, no, you're better fighting wars covertly, right, where you have the local people want to fight. They have an adversary, you support it to the maximum, and you don't put troops on the ground. So I'm not a big fan of what we did in Iraq, and I didn't like the way it turned out in Afghanistan, because I think we went

in too early with real army. So if there's folks on the ground, it's sort of my vision of how you do things without getting toe to toe in the shooting, kinetic war against the Russians. You and I have talked about this. Somebody on the president's team either intentionally or let it slip that special forces, American special forces, were sent to Kiev tove to protect the embassy now that's a joke special forces don't guard buildings special forces are offensive in nature so if they're there are we not risking the slow gradual vietnamization of this war. I could be wrong. I don't think there's a single American enlisted man or officer that's firing any weapons at the Russians. That you would, you better have tightened up

your military presence. I mean, if you have a, you know, I don't know how many guards, Marine guards you had there, but who've always served their country bravely. But once he invaded and you still had people there, you better fortify it because your embassy can be overrun, as we saw in Vietnam and other places. So that we would send in and, you know, people talk loosely about he's a member of CIA when they actually mean he's in DEA or DIA. When they say special forces, was DIA when they say special forces was he were they

really special forces I don't know but what they really should have done is tighten up the embassy and I bet they burn a lot of documents and prepare for the worst remember the US government was at least as I read it was offering Kalinsky a free plane ride out of Ukraine. But fortunately, he saw the situation quite differently and stayed. Thank God for all of us. But there was pessimism about the ability to hold. I'd like to know what Joe Biden's real thoughts are. I don't know that you can tell me this, because that $56 billion is going to be gone pretty soon. You mentioned Stingers. Have we sent them weapons that are powerful enough that they can reach into Russia?

And does that terrify Vladimir Putin? And if it does, what's he going to do about it? The reason I mentioned Stingers, Judge, is we were running a war for about eight years before the Stingers went in, right? And if you go back and read the press in 1985, it was the Russians were winning, the Mujahideen was running Al-Esteem. If you talk to the political elite in Washington, they would have told you the same thing immediately. What happened is the Reagan administration decided they were going to make one big push. I happened to be chief of the task force

at the time for TOTUS. But what happened? That one weapons system went in, and the first three helicopters, I remember going to see Judge, not Judge, Director Casey and showing him the photos of the shoot-downs. and their strategy came they started flying way above the range and then they were ineffective on the battlefield and that's when the russians started planning to leave now that was the first time stingers were introduced when they were what happened in this war you don't hear as much about air power as you did in your smole why why because the stinger you know takes out helicopters. And so they were there. We put the Stingers in and we put the Javelin, which is anti-tank. And when I was in

the Afghan program, it was we were looking for the Milan missile to take out tanks. So those things were terribly, terribly important. And that's why I don't think the Ukrainians would have been able to fight on without those two weapon systems. Your question is, okay, now we're 100 days into it, and artillery is now the key and the range of it. So the Russians can sit there and fire artillery, and the Ukrainians can't fire back because they don't have the range everything is said publicly by uh by the president and the the administration is those weapons are on their way to them and you know i wouldn't play i don't blame gluten for jumping up and down so don't you dare do that but i am uh glad that the the administration sees it for what it is and that is yeah what are you going to do about it

why don't you back off why don't you pull out why don't you stop you know slaughtering these people why don't you back off and then you wouldn't have to worry about whether we put them in or not all right uh we'll have you back soon Jack you said maybe Labor Day maybe Thanksgiving but over by Christmas the stalemate between both the Russians, that would be my bet. By Christmas, everyone's going to be exhausted. The support among the allies is going to be tenuous. Here in the United States, if we run into the sun of the economic headwinds, it's going to be tenuous. But remember, Putin is looking in the mirror, and he's not going to get any stronger.

His economy is not going to get any better. Fewer deaths on this battlefield are not going to happen. He's not going to really regain much territory. So I think at a certain point, you're in a stalemate. And is there a brilliant statesman who could come in and cut a deal? Maybe. I haven't seen him, but that's possible. I'm to think it just you know sort of dries up little by little and then he once the fighting's over then everyone in Russia looks at him

and including his own leadership and there's a lot of division in Moscow quiet as it may be about what a mistake this was. Well, once the fighting's over, they're going to have to contend with guerrilla warfare, the likes of which they've never seen. Well, that's the point. How far down can you turn it? I mean, that's going to be a really good question. And you don't have the guerrilla warfare unless you think you're going to gain something. Right? I wouldn't be put in other words, if Russia dials down, you have to be careful about forcing them to dial up. So is will there be guerrilla warfare? I think all along,

they've had very good tactics. So I hope the Ukrainians at some point, we recognize, it's like a judge, you know this, in settling a case, there's a line, and you know when both parties will agree, right? You know it. And if someone misses it, it gets really messy for a long time. So I think we're looking for that type of settlement where, yeah, it's not going to get better. It's only going to cost us more. But he's slow. Putin's slow at it. And the Ukrainians have every reason to be angry and wanting to perturb their integrity of their territory.

Jack Devine, always a pleasure. You're always welcome here. Thanks very much, my friend. Thank you. Always a pleasure. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom so Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, June 14th, 2023. It's about 445 in the afternoon here on the east coast of the United States.

Jack Devine, CIA agent extraord extraordinaire joins us right after this when it comes to carrying valuables or even firearms in your vehicle most people feel they have to choose between safety and convenience a vehicle break-in occurs every 36 seconds in america give dad the perfect father's day gift this year. The Headrest Safe. The Headrest Safe gives you the power to store cash, jewelry, medication, and yes, even your concealed carry firearm. You'll never have to worry about taking your valuables with you again. Keep them safe with the Headrest Safe. Use promo code JUDGENAP and enjoy $50 off for a limited time at theheadrestsafe.com. Jack, welcome to the show, my dear friend.

So if I were the president of the United States and you were briefing me tomorrow on the status of military events in Ukraine, what would you be telling me? Well, I think I would be saying I don't see surprises here on your previous briefing with that. Basically, you know, the Russians had a big offensive. It petered out, as I thought it would, and then mentioned it on here. We hyped the counteroffensive. I don't know why we felt we needed to do that. When I say that our allies, we did the media, that there was going to be a big counteroffensive. I don't know whether they thought we were going to drive the Russians to Moscow. But I think what's happening is I think you're starting to look at a smart maneuvering counteroffensive. But I, as I said on this show, several issues ago,

several events ago, that, you know, I think they will make some progress and I think they'll show some weaknesses. But I'm not expecting a decisive development on the battlefield either. I mean, decisive in the sense of war ending and getting to the table. I didn't expect it when the Russians did the offensive and I don't expect it now. So my opinion, if I were the president, is I'm sticking with it and that this is going to be drawn out and the real action will start after these two offensives when people reevaluate what the next move is. All right. In this mock Q&A we just did, where I said if I were the president and you were briefing me, I think you spoke honestly and candidly from your knowledge from open sources and from your own sources.

But doesn't the CIA, when they brief the president, tell him what they think he wants to hear? I hope not. I hope not. There's a long tradition in the CIA. It's really worth, you know, those that are interested going back and reading about Sherman Kent. Sherman Kent, when they first created the analytical group, and they really looked at it philosophically, strategic intelligence, current intelligence, what went to the president, what was our job? Our job is to put the facts on the table. One of the most desirable documents in Washington is the president's daily brief. Every day, a hand-carried briefing is brought to him. And that, I was going to use some profanity, that better well be nothing but the truth. Okay? And firstly, as a professional, you never want to bring junk to the president and have to face it.

I mean, first of all, there's a responsibility to do what you were hired to do. Why join CIA if you're going to be a propagandist? All right. What is your view on the offensive? Has it started? Oh, yes. Oh, yeah. No, I think it started.

I mean, they've got some rain issues and mud. And I think, again, I'm not a war planner in the sense that I'm a logistic guy. I can get things to places, but I leave to the great war students of the West Point and so on to figure out how you run wars tactically on the ground. But it looks to me like they're making probes

and what they're looking for is where is the place where you can actually make a significant penetration. But as I said, they're not gonna penetrate and get to the Russian border. I mean, it'd be quite amazing if they did. I think there's gonna be a lot of focus around Crimea and the land bridge, but not to be corny, it might be a bridge too far, but it certainly is a worthwhile objective

and it would be a psychological blow if any ground was taken in that area. Right. The dam, the bursting of the dam, it denied Crimea a significant portion of its freshwater, relieved the Russians of some land they didn't have to defend because nobody could go there uh because of the water most of the people in the West say Ukraine blew up uh its own dam was it Ukraine was it the Russians was it your former colleagues was it mi6 what are your sources tell you who have you concluded uh blew up this dam? I think the prevailing official estimates are that the Russians did it. I don't see how that's really advantageous to the Ukrainians to do that. But there's also some discussion about just how strong the dam was,

but I understand there was an explosion not too long before that. I'm betting on the Russians. You said recently that Russia is facing mounting pressures on multiple fronts. What do you mean? Well, they have pressures inside and out. I mean, one of the ones that I've been tracking with you for a long time is the fight between the Wagner Group and Prokosian and the military. I mean, I'm stunned by it. I mean, I can't remember ever seeing that in a major state in conflict and getting by, you usually think one party or the other disappears in the middle of the night, right? So I find that extraordinarily telling. And I'm not sure that I can answer the question, why does it continue? Internally, I think what you're beginning to see, Russians are seeing some of the consequences of it in terms of real deaths.

And I think there's economic pressures now as well. There's also raising their level of having trouble getting people into the armed forces and retaining them. I think their best day maybe was the first day they invaded, but I think it's been a slight sense. Now, I was saying, and I have been saying for a long time, that it'll be a while, and I'm thinking we're several months out, before you begin to see the ramifications inside Russia. When that starts, then we can really talk about

maybe there is some agreement that can be cut or something will happen internally. And we should not foment that i want to keep saying this right before before we get to the cia to be covert before we get to the conditions for an agreement which i want uh to pick your brain about uh i want to play a clip for you the latest from uh mr pergosian, rather measured for him, somewhat even critical of his own people. But watch this. There are subtitles. I will do my best to read the subtitles aloud for the benefit of our friends who have the

show on audio only, and then you and I can talk about it. In a few words what's happening. The following is happening. Ukrainian began an offensive. I'm saying all as it is with the offensive. They do everything confidently. They're cutting off certain areas in the Zaborizhia direction. They're moving carefully, calmly. They lost a couple of Leopards and Bradleys. These are normal combat losses. I'm not saying this to promote them, but to judge sensibly.

For now, in my view, and according to the valuation of the military on the ground, not enough is being done to counter the enemy. Are you surprised to hear that? Oh, I've been stunned by his statements. I don't know how you do it. I'll tell you, Stalin would never have permitted it. This would never have been a second statement. So I'm perplexed why it goes on this way I'm not sure what the game is all I can say is if you're in the official military it's got to be you know

stuck in your crawl right I mean this is he has to be the me he has to be disliked more than the Ukrainians in my but he he almost sounded like Jack Devine. Well, I was going to make a pun. The problem with that pun is too many people in the office, in the audience are going to believe me that he's one of ours, right? I'm not going to deny any knowledge or ability to that, but when I was- Nothing would surprise me, and I have a very smart audience that's very skeptical of the intelligence community. If he was my agent, I would say, no, don't talk that way. You're going to think, what about that?

I believe that he's a politician. But I find this serious. The fact that that goes on, it's lazy. It's public. He's developing public dissent within the institutions

that keep Putin alive. I mean, keep him. I don't get the move here. Okay. Is the CIA aware of the relationship between Prokofiev and Putin? Do they monitor the communications between the two and do they have an explanation for this kind of a statement? I have, I have no idea about those questions and I would never never ask it's perfectly okay for you yeah but Jack you used

to do this when you were on their payroll how could you I hope I hope I hope but look you know Putin's been around the horn if he was in the FSB and the KGB now I do know people in CIA even though they've been trained that they get on the damn phone and you KGB. Now, I do know people in CIA, even though they've been trained, that they get on the damn phone and call people and tell them what they're doing. So I don't think their relationship is like that. But there was a very close... They called him Putin's chef.

If he's Putin's chef, he better watch the pumpkin soup that he's not trying to poison him. So my point is they had a really tight relationship and I think you what I've been reading over the years is that some of the funding is coming out of the out of the government but you know it defies my way of my understanding of how you run a smooth Army I'm sure so I would have fired I mean there would not there would not have been a second comment from progression I mean if uh if the Russian is bigger

a bigger mindset here that I'm missing the grand strategy it sure as hell evades me if the Russians take uh Odessa is that it is it over for the Ukrainians there's no single place. People have to realize this. There's no single town. There's no single border. They're going to keep fighting what we thought, what I thought. Let me stick to what I thought. But they rolled, when they rolled across the border, they had, you know, they really looked pretty ragged around the edges in terms of equipment. I thought originally, remember, they were offering a ticket to Zelensky to get out of there. Because I think why we estimated very properly that Putin was going to invade, I think more people thought they were going to prevail quickly. And I think the estimate was they were going to have guerrilla warfare. There would be fighting. The fighting would go on. They would not, the Russians would not be able to subjugate. And I would say this today, no matter what combination, even if they took Kyiv, I don't think it's over. I don't think, I think he got into an unwinnable war. And I don't

know how he gets himself out of it. In fact, you know, my op-ed says he's going to go. He so deceives under the mize. So I don't know how he gets out of this. And so little, so little. All right. With that phrase in our ears, even if he took Kiev, the war won't be over. We're going to take a break. When we come back, we'll pick up the conversation. President Putin yesterday had a three and a half hour press conference with Russian journalists. We'll play a couple of clips from it and hear Jack's reactions right after this. You want to feel safe in your vehicle. And for you, that means easy, rapid access to your firearm. But safety also means your items don't fall into the wrong hands you don't have to choose between safety and convenience the headrest

safe keeps your firearm where you can access it and no one else can just order your headrest safe install it yourself when it arrives and enjoy peace of mind it starts at the headrestsafe.com so we're going to run this uh first clip it's a little more than a minute there are subtitles again i'll do my best uh to pick up on them i think you're going to be if you haven't seen this jack it's just me knowing you i think you're going to be pleasantly surprised at president putin's candor here he's talking about the strengths and weaknesses of the ukraine military to about 30 russian journalists journalists. During this time, they lost over 100 tanks and over 300, 460 armored vehicles of various types. This is just what we see.

There are still losses that we do not see that are inflicted. The Russian Federation has also been using high-precision weapons, attack large concentrations. So there were actually more of these losses on the Ukrainian side. And so by my calculations, it's about 25, maybe 30 percent of the volume of equipment that was supplied from abroad. Here's a mouse. It seems to me that if they count objectively, they'll go along with it. But as far as I've seen from open sources,

from Western sources, that's about what they seem to be saying here. So the offensive is on and these are the results uh to date of what I've just said as I read it he's saying that he and the West agree that about 25 to 30 percent of the military equipment supplied by the West and used by the ukraines has been. What do you say? I don't have an answer to that. Let's say there is 20%. What he doesn't say, which is telling, Judge, is he doesn't tell you what's happening to them. He's not talking about the losses they're suffering, right? They're not talking about that. And then he talks about the precision weapons and all this. That means he can't't fight he can't use his air he can't use his air force right he can't what do you mean he can't use his air force

pardon like why can't he use his air force he doesn't where's the air where's the well because he's going to be shot down by singers and other other anti-air platforms so he's you know he's not flying in and bombing them he's using rockets on the side of the mountain right he's not flying in and bombing them. He's using rockets on the side of the mountain, right? He's firing. It's like firing a cruise missile out in the middle of the desert, which I always got upset about. That was going to be a big deal. He's destroyed a lot of houses. He's destroyed a lot of buildings. He's killed a lot of civilians. But those weapons, they're not precision weapons. If you start looking at the place, he hit a dormitory of students. I mean, come on.

So I think what you're looking at, now they've had a number of defectors from the prisoners taken with the Russians. And the morale is extraordinarily low because they're scared to death of these weapons that are being provided to the Ukrainians. So in combat, when you're busy fighting, yeah, you lose equipment. They did lose some luck, that's for sure. But again, you're talking about hundreds and hundreds of weapons and platforms going in there.

So if he's trying to suggest for a minute that he's had some sort of pushback, show us where. I don't think there's any map by any Western outlet that has any respectability that shows the Russians are making any progress against the counter offensive. It just be- It does be- Here's President Putin talking about

what happened in 2014. He does not mention the name of your former employer by name. He does not mention Victoria Nulandland by name but i think you'll know exactly who and what he's talking about again i will read the subtitles listen this was not the first coup and how did yushenko come to power in ukraine what as a result of legitimate actions do you want me to show you how he came to power? We know that they came up with a third round of voting. What bloody third round?

It is not provided by the Constitution. This was a coup. But at least it was passed in a relatively peaceful way. And we communicated with them. I went there. They came to us. No, it came to a bloody coup d'etat. It became obvious that we are not given any chance to build normal relations with our neighbors and the fraternal Ukrainian people. It's all nonsense. What is he talking about? They had a fraudulent election. I mean, you had a number of independent advisors looking at it. They tried to skip the election. Let me know when you know of a Russian election that's fair and square in the history of mankind. So this is all nonsense. He had a puppet in there. He got annoyed because he fell down and knocked down, and the people in the streets you know took over i mean he's the cia are you throwing them out are you telling us that americans

american intelligence had nothing to do with throwing out the popularly elected president of 2014 jack have you have you seen anything in the official domain on this i haven't what do you mean anything official your guys are not going to admit to what they did. No, you have to appear before Congress. The President of the United States has to say something. Is there anything out there that suggested that we provided anything to them?

Are you saying the CIA had nothing to do with the 2014 coup? I would say I haven't seen anything that supports that. All right. I mean, one wants to speculate. Let me look for your audience that we love. The CIA is not behind everything. I wish we were so omnipotent.

I wish I was really that good. There are so many things that happen in the world because of the indigenous circumstances. And the CIA has a role in life with the President of the United States and Congress approving it. They just can't go out there willy-nilly. And the limitations of covert, I thought my books are in support of it, but it talks about the limitations. So we are suspected of everything, you know, being behind COVID. I mean, who knows what else we were behind. So there was a, you have to remember the spirit of that time.

I mean, there was, democracy was flowing and getting rid of the Soviet system. And it was one country after another eventually reached Ukraine and Ukraine is of all of them is the most critically important one to Russia it's small but small potatoes on the national international screen without Ukraine he needs it now there isn't a Ukrainian today that doesn't despise Russia if he thinks there'd be a vote or an election there that they'd vote those that were russian sympathizers have moved down you know they're in russian controlled areas well right there are very few there are russian speaking ukrainians in the donbass in fact there's more russian speakers yeah that's what i'm saying you have to be in a controlled russian area okay okay right um two days ago uh the White House made some noises and Chancellor Scholz made some noises. I say make some noises. They weren't very specific. And Prime Minister Sunak of Great Britain made similar hints that they want Ukraine to join NATO. A wise move or not, Jack? Now, I don't know if it'll happen.

Viktor Orban, the president of Hungary, is adamantly against it, and it's got to be a unanimous vote. But what does Jack Devine think? What does the CIA think? I started out in a more measured way, in the sense that I was concerned how hard we pushed Russia, what was going to happen. And then after I started to look at what they tried to do and their shortcomings and the atrocity, I mean, what they did to that country is just shameful. So when I began to look at it, what if we buy jets? What if we do whatever? I do not want American troops on the ground, yeah i put them in nato what what's what is what is putin going to do answer that question what is he going to do now there's there's rules of regulation nato i don't want to be that glib they will not be given during

a war an active war brought into nato with the understanding that nato will defend them because they're now a member of NATO. There would have to be a revision in the NATO agreement. So in the concept of Ukraine and NATO, sure, why not? But that's not going to happen during a fighting season. I think the rules prohibit that without a modification. Things can be modified. I not support i would not support nato getting in now as a force in ukraine as a member of some status and where when the fighting stops that they're a full member of nato sure why not how do you see this ending and when do you see it ending your american troops going to be on the ground jack i don't see american troops ever be underground i certainly hope they're not going to be underground i see no reason to believe that the ukrainians seem to be

doing a hell of a job without us in that regard they need our support in supplies training all those things they need but they don't need us fighting on the ground they seem to be doing uh doing quite well i i'm probably a little more optimistic than many of my friends in the sense that I don't think he can go on indefinitely at this level. And that's why the offensive and counteroffensive are important. Because after that, does Putin go back and say, now I'm going to build a new army, a better army, and I'm going to come back again, or the Ukrainian? So I think the trouble really starts in the fall of this year and it all surrounds Putin's stability. Will he stay or will he go and how will he go? Otherwise, the war could drop down to a lower level of intensity and go on

forever. And we're still at war with North Korea. Jack Devine, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you, Judge. Always a pleasure. Thank you for joining us. More as we get it. If you like what you just saw, whether you agree with Jack or not, like, subscribe, tell your friends. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.

Track. The headrest safe is quick and easy to use. Some may even call it a game changer. The headrest safe acts as a safety net, protecting your belongings while keeping them out of sight and out of bounds of others, serving us security while also keeping your valuables in bounds. That's what the headrest Safe provides for me. Game, set, everyone.

Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, March 16, 2023. It's about 11 o'clock in the morning here on the East Coast of the United States. Jack Devine joins us now. Jack, always a pleasure. Welcome back to the show. The last time we spoke, it looked like the Russians were going to overtake Bakhmut. Now it looks like there's a stalemate there. There have been a lot of losses on both sides. Should the Ukrainians just give this up and not lose any more human beings? The city is 70 to 75 percent destroyed. There's 3,000 civilians left out of a normal population of a hundred thousand how does

the government decide the Ukrainian government decide what to defend or the American government decide what to help them defend well I think judge we've talked about this a couple times remember you had a few guests we won't quote them the big offensive was coming the 300 000 man army was going to roll and you know we're talking about one town now the problem with this is the little bit that they've got they've paid a huge price the question shouldn't be whether the Ukrainians can toughen out are the Russians prepared to continue to lose the high number of casualties and for that little piece of territory then what happens after the ukrainians pull out okay we had that town it's a victory i mean that's that's a laughable right so are these are these um villages or towns over which they're fighting and of which we in the west untutored as you are, have never heard of before. Are they just victories over which you

can boast? Are they victories for morale? Or are they strategic military victories in Putin's march westward? I think there was a small strategic value like it it's over uh it buttresses against the major Highway Transportation link but you know that's not the only city that does it however once you say this is something we're taking as the Russians did and I really want to watch this the head of the head of the Wagner group who's made a big deal out of it then you make it it becomes suddenly a strategic and psychological thing now god forbid they leave for for their sake because if they pull out and they can't take one town when they put everything in it i so i think it's overrated and i think that the ukrainians can move back and it's not going to change the battle it's not going to change the

battlefield then you have to take the next town the next time and i don't know what the real numbers are and i don't know if anybody does but we start talking about hundreds of thousands of death or even a hundred thousands that's a mother and father brother maybe sister neighbor i mean you know back home that's a lot of a lot of dying so well reuters Reuters reported Reuters reported two days ago between 170 and 200 000 Ukraine military deaths I would think that that's huge yeah I think that's off um but I would say whatever the number is because I don't want to give a number because I don't really know I think the Russians are losing double or triple because of their poorly led and their strategy but Ukraine is a smaller country so if it's just we're going to fight the last man when

I was out there in 18 I talked to a number of very very senior heads of cabinet level groups and they were the same thing we'll fight the last man if you fight to the last man. If you fight to the last man, that eats up all of Russia's three times the number. It's horrific that we have to see this kind of war being carried on because of the mindset of Vladimir Putin. Paul Jay All right. You mentioned the Wagner Group. What does the CIA think of them? How does the CIA evaluate them with respect to their professionalism as a fighting force and their being subject to the Russian military chain of command? I just would say, if I were back in the game, this would be a nightmare.

If I had some private sector group out there running running a war uh and you were in the chain of command you were the head of the armed forces air navy and you have you have a paramilitary guy out there and remember where all the basic recruits are not the better soldiers he has some good mercenaries most of them are criminals left out of prison. And he has a problem now because there are only so many prisoners in Russia. And they've been using them as cannon fodder. In other words, they are the first wave in every attack. When you say they, you mean the Russian military or the Wagner group?

No, no, this is the Wagner group. But the Russian military is also letting it happen. I think the key judge above all things think of yourself vladimir putin and progojan is saying you know i think i'm going to get in politics as well suppose your your contractor is criticizing the armed forces think about the United States. If one of the defense contracting groups was given a big mission and they kept criticizing the commander chief of the armed forces, they wouldn't be around for a long time. That's what I talked about a year ago when we

first started talking about this. This is dissent. This is not the way a smooth operation runs. It's the building of resentment between regular army and special forces. And it's out in the public because of social media. He is a very outspoken guy. Does the government fund the Wagner Group or does Bogosian and his billionaire buddies funded. Yeah, so this is a hard thing to read. I don't know how any private person can support it. So my guess is it started out out of the government's money and ammunitions and looked like a good thing. You could use them out there as the point of the lance

and you saved your best traditional soldiers. But he's got an ego of a considerable size he's now taking himself more seriously and i think they wanted him to so he's now that tiger that you have to contain you know it's your tiger but you know you don't want him to bite your right leg off so i think there's real dissent i think he loses i always bet there was the end of the day if Putin's there do you side with your military your own military team or just side with a guy like him so there is a fight growing which I'm betting on Putin and the traditional military and projosion will regret having played this role I think we'll see it's an unusual way u.s army would never we would

never run a war this way but never right i'm going to show you um a film of what took place over the black sea two days ago take a look at this jack that's the russian uh fighter jet spewing fuel, and that's the underbelly of the American drone. Now you're going to see a second shot. It's either the same jet again, or it's another jet. Here it is coming at the drone again, and this time it hits the propeller. If you look carefully after the screen materializes again, you'll see that one of the propellers, propeller blades, there it is, you see it is slightly damaged, and that, of course, is when the controllers of this thing, which I guess are somewhere in the United States, decide to bring it down. Are you surprised that the American military, I don't think this was CIA, I think this was Air

Force, but you can correct me, was flying drones over the Black Sea? And if it is, what are those drones doing there? Well, I hope we're flying drones over the black sea we're an intelligence business we should be knowing where every ship russian ship moves where every brigade moves i mean we've been doing it for years so um so i guess the the point that i you know i would make is there's nothing surprising about the fact that we have a drone up there now this was an international order as i as i recall well there's a dispute as to whether it was international okay restricted space but one of the american generals said yesterday he thought it was in restricted airspace and we should never have agreed that the black sea

was restricted air anything like this no i'm gonna you go with the americans on this i mean the russians haven't said a truthful thing since the beginning of this war about what's going on. So I have no reason I would accept anything the Russians say. But even no matter where it is, it wasn't over Russian territory. I mean, that's my own view. But what happened here is they wanted, I think what I read was they did make a conscious decision. They were going to take out one of our troops, but it was an area they felt they should do that. Look to me, even if you allow

for the movie's magic, I don't think you have a jet and you fly out a drone and you try and clip off half of it propelling. I wouldn't want to be in that plane trying to do it. So I think there might have been an accident on that part, but they wanted to bring it down and maybe they would have just shot down at a certain point. Spraying oil, that's a new one for me.

And I'm not saying it's not a great technique. I'm just not familiar with it. The point is an aggressive act against, in my view, an aggressive act against the American platform and international waters. If it's over their territory, then there will be less of a fight about it. How did it get there? You're entitled back to the U2 and the U2 and Khrushchev.

You go over your territory. We just shot down the Chinese and that's fair game. So I think. But it has bigger ramifications, obviously. Right. That's not. Is are they going to continue this? What's our response?

Well, here's Senator Lindsey Graham who never met somebody else's blood he didn't want to shed. Well, we should hold him accountable and say that if you ever get near another U.S. set flying in international waters, your airplane would be shot down. What would Ronald Reagan do right now? He would start shooting Russian planes down if they were threatening our assets. You're going to kill a Russian pilot because he sprayed oil at an American drone in what could have been Russian restricted airspace? In my books, I always address the issue of proportionality, right? When you get into these struggles and it's a tit-for-tat, okay,

but if you double the ante, in other words, you shoot down a plane with two pilots in it and you kill a pilot, that's different than a machine in just about everybody's lexicon. But the question is, do you just sit and let them knock down all your platform your multi-million dollar platforms at will so you have to respond this is where proportionality if they did that i'd take down one of their drones under similar circumstances center conditions okay but you wouldn't you wouldn't you wouldn't take down a fighter jet with absolutely not human beings absolutely would not do that but i also wouldn't sit and suck my

thumb waiting for more and more i i would allow that maybe this was one off and maybe you just make less of a dramatic all right tell me about but the second one i would respond for sure, and I would respond in kind. Tell me about the drones. They know that we have drones watching their every movement in Crimea, and we must know that they have drones that can see traffic jams on 6th Avenue in New York City from 50,000 feet above Canada. Am I exaggerating? You're only exaggerating in the limitations. They could do that in 1968, Judge. Today, you know, they can give you the, you know, how big is the tip of the pen, I'm thinking. But everyone has capabilities undreamed and thought of

before you just go in with the assumption anybody that comes from the intelligence table and thinks they're hiding anything under a bush and it can't be seen or heard is in for a big surprise so yes they know what it is now they are hunting what I understand is they're looking for the drone because they want to see what technology so that they would try to reverse engineer it if there's things on there that they don't already have. It's at 4,000 feet under the sea. It's a long way to go. But we've gone for submarines. I mean, it's a very common historical thing to try and get other people's technology that way.

Right, right. All right. So the drone, the American drone is looking at crimea so it can inform uh american intel you tell me if i'm wrong which would inform ukrainian intel of what the russians have and what they're amassing and when it's coming chris come on i don't think we need a drone to do that i mean let me put it this way i think uh if i were in langley my guess is i could probably look at every inch of Crimea without leaving my desk without a drone. Then why do we have the drone?

I'm allowing that there are, as it's heavy things that they might want to know, right? Things that are not available just from a picture taken at an extraordinary height. So I don't know the answer to that. Give me an example of taken at an extraordinary height. So I don't know the answer to that. Okay, give me an example of what is esoteric that the drone could see, who couldn't see from your office in Langley. Right. So I think the types of things you think about are communications, right? I mean, are, you know, battlefield communications and are people using what the Russians are doing apparently that was they're using the open lines on their on their phones and so you know there's

things to listen to now we have satellites to do that too right everybody does but I don't want to get into it too far but I would just allow that it's um there's things that you don't put them up for no good reason. So there's something they're collecting, and the Russians want to get rid of it because it's an intelligence platform. And it's fair game except in international territory. Are the CIA drones better than the Air Force drones? They're better than the Russian Air Force drones. Well, is it the same hardware that the Air Force uses as the CIA, or are the CIA's

different or better? Judge, there's an old saying, one team, one fight. So the agency has one role, or military, the other. When the drone program started started remember they started at langley right in terms of using drones so they were used for non-war purposes right and i was involved because there was things in the drug area that actually stimulated interest and then terrorism and then somebody decided well wouldn't be fun to arm them with hell hellfire missiles and that changed life so but we had one mission collection and, you know,

and maybe it was smaller, smaller frames. And then the military had bigger issues. So the I think they both have. I don't think there's any competition between the services on the platforms. I think they carry out different missions. OK, I want to switch to big picture and geopolitics, which I know is your field. Could I just make one comment on the last one? Sure.

Because I would not overblow this issue and wait and see if it's going to continue. One of the things that concerned me was when I passed and listened to Milley speaking the commander chief of our armed forces i didn't it wasn't what he was saying but it just was a flashback to a period in life where the stakes are getting higher and you can back into problems and i you know i'm not saying it wasn't it wasn't right it was the wrong thing what i'm saying is we have to be careful that we don't let any of these things spin out of control and i'm not saying it was the wrong thing. What I'm saying is we have to be careful that we don't let any of these things spin out of control. And I'm not saying that's what he was doing. I'm just saying I got a little tense about the growing, where we are with Russia and China, and largely because of their doing. But I think we're in a more dangerous world was my takeaway.

All right. Do you have a sense that the stakes are getting getting higher that we're in this thing too long uh too deep no in fact i actually have a different a different view and that is i think we inevitably had to get in i mean you just can't have a land war started by russia and every why are the europeans so forcefulness because they know that he'll go further, try to go further. The Poles gave him the planes. Why are they giving him the planes? Because they really, really fear this. But what I do think is that there's an opportunity in this

that is a greater global strategy. He started this. And what he's really queued up is he needs to go and Russia this Adventure needs to stop if we want to have global balance in the world and more peace in other words it isn't enough I think at this point we have to stay long enough that Russia changes its course it's the Russian people decide to change its course okay you, you said he has to go. Your buddies in the CIA still think that this war should result in the removal or can result in the removal of President Putin from office.

See, what I wrote last year in March was, when he crossed the border, he sowed the seeds of his own demise, and he will fall of his own weight, and the Russian people make it happen. I'm not suggesting we, I actually said in your, do not do covert action, do not mess around inside Russia, just keep this struggle going and his own failures would do that. But I also think if you look at the world, if he's gone and there's a more accommodatingating rush if you i'm not saying the democratic free one it is also the way to contain the the power of china and what you have instead of a global block on one side of the table with the russians and jack we don't know who's going to replace him

he could be replaced by his predecessor dmitry medvedev who said he wants to invade poland yeah so here's my take on that he fails why because he didn't bomb enough houses because he didn't kill enough people that he didn't put his best no the next person isn't going to have new armies so the next person is doomed to fail i honestly do not believe i know it's an acceptable argument i'm just saying that's that's not the assumption i'm working on i'm working on when putin goes they're going to sit around the table, hey, enough of this stuff. Let's get an air gap. So I do not think they can't be more hostile. There's no more hostile play. It's not like Putin's laying back and being nice to us. So I think his departure is critical. And if anything is inevitable in life, I think

the way this is being handled, I don't see how he survives. And the Wagner fight with the military is just the first sign of what the strains are going to be within his systems if he's seen as a real loser. Hey, Jack, I'm going to put up a full screen of a book and you tell me if I should buy it and read it and if I do, what I'll learn from it. Judge, that's a spectacular book. I couldn't recommend any anybody more that I would rather read right before you go to bed. I'm proud of this book because it came out a year before the invasion. And I very candidly and directly say he's underestimating the Ukrainians. If they go in, he will be underestimating what he's going to face. that my quotable quote was Kiev will be the new Berlin of the third

the next Cold War now this is a hot war so but I would change a couple things in the book um it's going to come out in paperback this year but um I think I thought it was really tough on him and I was drawing a lot of attention to Russia and all my friends said oh it's all about china i would be tougher on him i think he's more dangerous and i gave him too much credit for technical prowess i thought he was just a hard tough kgb guy former formidable adversary but i didn't appreciate i I knew he was badly wounded by the fall of the Communist Party and the KGB. I didn't realize how deep that hatred for the United States is, that we are the main enemy.

I didn't appreciate, I don't use the word evil, and I know sometimes we've had discussions about evil, but it's usually in theological arguments. Very few people do say they're evil. You say they're bad, they're this. Is Putin evil? Yeah, I think he fits into that category. When you kill the deaths that are mounting in Ukraine, and you're not remorseful about it, it puts you in a new category so i think he's dangerous and the second thing about him is i thought you know it was more political than than i i i take you know i was tough on him

but i i will take him down a few more notches on the big things that i thought were important and we needed to have an accommodation with russian there was room there There was no room. He has a different mindset and is much more black and darker than I thought. And I think it makes this problem more formidable. Thank you.