Judging Freedom - Ukraine Offensive. Now or Later_ Phil Giraldi fmr CIA

Episode Date: May 31, 2023

See omny.fm/listener for privacy information.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, May 31st, 2023. It's about 1145 in the morning here on the East Coast of the United States. Phil Giraldi joins us now. Phil, thank you very much for joining us. And thanks for your time last week with us when I was in Europe. You had many, many, many people from Europe and, of course, from all over the world watching us. Since you and I spoke last, the Ukrainians have exploded some drones in a residential area 10 minutes or so from the neighborhood of President Putin's official residence. There's a picture of it. Tony Schaefer says that that is either a 500 or 1,000 pound payload. That's a significant explosion. He asks us to look for the red at the

beginning. We'll let Gary run it one more time because he says that red will tell an ordinance person. I know you're not ordinance, neither am I. Give an ordinance person an indication. One more time, Gary, there it is. See the red of the power of it. But my question to you is, would American intel be aware of the dispatch of this drone and others like it to this residential neighborhood before they went? Robert R. Well, of course, that's a difficult question. I would think they must have been knowledgeable, not in a sense of directly being informed by the Ukrain NSA, FBI, whatever law enforcement and national intelligence agencies are operating fully there. I would imagine that's a given that so they would have had some prior knowledge of what was going on and probably also what the targets were and would they have reported that prior knowledge to their bosses in langley

and from langley to the west wing i mean stated differently would american military and political leadership have been aware of these drones being aimed at a residential neighborhood in Moscow before they were dispatched? Is that more likely than not? I know you don't know the precise answer. You weren't there. But is it more likely than not, based upon your sources and your experience, that American senior military and political leadership would have known about this? Well, given the fact that an attack on Moscow of this nature,

which will escalate what is going on in the region there dramatically, I would suspect, I would believe that any field intelligence like this collected would immediately be shared with the National Security Council, for starters, and also with the president. This is a significant move and one that is quite dangerous in terms of moving this war to another level. And, of course, the Russians might make the assumption that this ordinance and the intelligence behind it to do the targeting came from another party, like the United States. I mean, as I see it, either the United States knew about it and consented, which, as you say, raises a lot of other issues about where this war is going, about which more in a moment. Or Zelensky, President Zelensky and his crew are really loose cannons, reckless in the extreme.

Now, perhaps both is the case here. Why would this have been aimed at a residential neighborhood, the opposite of a military target, and a residential neighborhood close to President Putin's official residence? I don't know where he sleeps at night. He probably has many residences, but this is one of them. Well, didn't one senior Russian official describe it as like an attack on Beverly Hills? So it was that kind of context. This was a high-end residential area in Moscow, and Putin apparently was not anywhere near it. But nevertheless, the targeting was very specific. It was going after a high profile target that if it had killed a lot of senior Russians or Russians who had high profiles, it would have been an automatic escalation probably within 24 hours of the event taking place.

It seems to me to be reckless in the extreme for the Americans to have consented to this. I mean, surely if this word got to the National Security Council, the president could have called up Zelensky and said, don't you dare. Are you crazy? We're not supporting World War III. But he didn't. Yeah, War III. But he didn't. Yeah, well, of course he didn't. I mean, if there were private exchanges that went on, I would rather suspect there were, then we're not going to be in the loop about that. They're not going to tell us. Because this is, let's face it, I mean, this is becoming Biden's war. And there's not really a whole lot we can do to change that message that they're sending out.

Let's go back to version of the raw intel, you know, starts out in the field and makes its way to Langley and then it's politicized and mixed up and spun and then it gets to the Oval Office, I guess, are they going to tell him what they think he wants to hear? Or are they going to tell him what they think he wants to hear? Or are they going to tell him what the raw intel is telling them? They'll be basically telling him what he wants to hear. But if they're doing it cleverly enough, they will also weave the raw intel into the message. So it depends on how good the briefer is. If you get a guy like Ray McGovern, who was a top level briefer, who also has Russian language skills, he was a guy who would be able to do this very skillfully. I don't know who is briefing the White House right now. And they

could be someone who's a lot lower down the food chain and we don't really know that. A few minutes ago when I asked you about Intel being aware of the planned drone strike on the residential neighborhood in Moscow and you mentioned the CIA and the NSA, you also mentioned the FBI. Is the FBI a domestic law enforcement agency physically present in Ukraine or monitoring by some means communications between and among Ukrainian officials? Well, the FBI has an office in most embassies. It's called the Legat. And the Legat, of course, is answerable to the Attorney General. Now, stop it, Rupert. That's enough. So, you know, this is another function, and it varies from country to country as to how deeply the FBI is embedded with the local law enforcement. In a place like Ukraine, where we're paying all the bills,

I rather suspect they are deeply embedded. And what are they doing there? I mean, we have the CIA physically present on the ground. We have the NSA, which monitors Zelensky snoring at night, for all we know. What is the FBI there for? Well, the FBI, if you were to ask them, of course, they would probably be lying to you. They would say that they're there basically to coordinate law enforcement efforts. Now, I imagine that one of their big jobs right now is to pin this wrap of war crimes on Putin and on the Russians. And they're probably doing the investigations for Garland on that, for Merrick Garland, the Attorney General. And this is probably a big

job of what they do. But to do that, they're deeply into whatever law enforcement entities exist in Ukraine. And they probably, their job is to make sure they're keeping an eye on them and finding out what they're not being told. Wow. All right. Senator Lindsey Graham, who of course once famously publicly called for President Putin's assassination, had a meeting with President Zelensky in Kyiv over the weekend. I don't know how long the meeting was. We have about a 30, 35-second clip. I'd like your views on the significance of what he said to President Zelensky. Thank you very much. Thanks, United States. We have, I think, just a little meeting. Thank you very much. Thanks, United States people of the United States for all big support.

Thank you so much. Free or die. Free or die. Now you are free. Yes. And we will be. And the Russians are dying. This is the best money we've ever spent.

Thank you so much the Russians are dying. It's the best money we've ever spent. Thank you so much. Russians are dying. It's the best money we've ever spent. Hyperbole or recklessness? Well, this is extremely reckless. And the Russians responded to it by putting him on a list. The fact is this guy has been a loose cannon since forever. And he gets away with it because there's always been kind of what I would call

the McCain wing of the reckless use of force in the Republican Party. And he, Lindsey Graham, has been a major part of that. I think it's insane uh even if you believe it's a great idea you're killing Russians and your money is being well spent you don't say it and uh you know this is just a another message to the American people that our government uh in a bipartisan sense, is out of control. This is a tragedy. I mean, this is a reckless poking of the bear, if you will,

and almost a gloating, if you saw the look on his face. You almost can't blame them. I think they put him on a list of war criminals or sanctions or something. Nothing's going to happen to him. He reacted typically to it saying it's a badge of honor and I welcome it. But does a statement like this animate Russian, or do they view him as just a thug? Well, they probably view him as a thug, but they view him as a well-connected thug. He's been around in the Senate for a long time. There are some indications that there are a number of others in the Republican Party that see it the way he does. I would say a certain senator from Florida and another one from

Arkansas. These are all people that basically believe in the liberal application of force and terrorism by the United States is somehow legitimate. And what it does is it cuts off all possible discussion or discourse with people who are adversaries, and it also course applaud that criticism, of legislation introduced by Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, which would make it illegal for American corporations to participate in boycotts of countries that are aligned with whoever's in the White House at the moment, basically interfering with commercial and economic decisions made by American corporations and their affiliates overseas. What's he trying to accomplish other than suppressing free speech? Well, he's criminalizing, the intention, the ultimate intention is to criminalize private entities, whether as individuals or as companies, from basically

encouraging boycotts and other economic action directed against countries that Washington considers to be friends. And of course, this is primarily focused on Israel and the BDS movement, although the legislation actually doesn't say that. But the sponsors do say it. And the idea is to make it so that anyone who criticizes Israel is up for penalties. And there are 26 states right now where you can be penalized by just saying that you support economic action against Israel for its crimes against humanity. So, I mean, this is a major attack on freedom of speech getting back to uh to ukraine um here's victorian newland uh about five or six months ago uh encouraging it seems absurd but she's encouraging an invasion of crimea there is a drone base in crimea where the drones that the Iranians have given Russia

are being launched from. There are command and control sites in Crimea that are essential for Russia's hold on all of the territory, including the land bridge. There are mass military installations on Crimea that Russia has turned into essential logistics and back office depots for this war. Those are legitimate targets. Ukraine is hitting them, and we are supporting that. About as reckless as Senator Graham. Yeah, the real reckless words were the last few, and we are supporting them. Right.

Which is basically telling the Russians that we're involved in the attacks on Sevastopol. And basically, Russia sees this as a vital national security interest. There's no two ways to parse that. And so it's essentially saying, look, we're already involved in this war and we're directing them and we're giving them the weapons that they're going to use to attack a vital national interest. Here she is last Friday, just five days ago, talking about American involvement in the preparation for the so-called spring offensive. And second part of what she says, preparing for a government when the war is over. And even as you plan for the counteroffensive, which we have been working on with you for some four or five months we are already beginning our discussions uh with the ukrainian government and with friends in kiev

both in the civilian side and on the military side about ukraine's long-term future let's start with the first part. Could you imagine the American Secretary of State announcing on the airwaves such as they were in 1944, oh, and you British are helping us to plan D-Day and we'll be there with you. How reckless is something like this? Well, again, it's totally reckless. It takes no account of other options that could be pursued in terms of this conflict. Like, for example, I never hear her use the word negotiate or discuss. It's always like we are partners, fully partners with Zelensky, who is a loose cannon and has his own ambitions. And we are willing to do whatever it takes to defeat. And Biden has said the same thing. We'll do whatever it takes to win this war. And obviously winning the war now means dismembering what has become part of Russia.

And we're looking at Russia as a truncation, perhaps. So we're actively doing it with the Ukrainian government. So this, again, this is insane. Even if you're doing this kind of thing, you don't tell people that. You don't do it. It gains you nothing, and all it does is make the situation more intractable.

Now we'll go to a far more sane observer of the scene. This is a Q&A with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. I'm going to guess that you will share my view of his nuance, his values, and quite frankly, his articulation. It's a little long, but it's worth watching and listening to. You made a great deal about 1956 and fighting for freedom. You have a neighbor who was invaded by Russia, the very country. You grew up with pictures of tanks going into Budapest. Why are you opposing the European aid?

No, no, it's emotionally, it's tragic. So all of our heart is with the Ukrainians. We understand how much they suffer, but I'm speaking here as a politician who should save lives. So the most important thing for the international political communities to save lives, especially when you are convinced, as I do, that there is no chance to win this war. So therefore, what we should do far more energy invest into, to convince everybody that the only solution is ceasefire. And then after the ceasefire, peace talks should start. And then we could back to your point, yeah?. Do you really think there is no chance of Ukraine winning?

Surely they stand very little chance of winning without the aid which you are currently blocking. My position is that looking at the reality, looking at the figures, looking at the surroundings, looking at the fact that

NATO is not ready to send troops, it's obvious that there is no victory for poor Ukrainians on the battlefield. You're not going to hear that out of anybody in the State Department. No, I think that he was right on every point he made, that this has just become a slaughterhouse for both sides to a certain extent. Ukrainians have no chance of winning. He sounded a lot like Colonel McGregor, I'm happy to say. And he's basically saying the more you prolong this, you're just killing people for ultimately no reason. And I think it also was Colonel McGregor who said that, you know, Joe Biden could end this fighting by picking up the phone. And I think it would probably take a

couple of phone calls, but I think that's probably true. I think that everyone would welcome a way to bring in a ceasefire and then get into serious discussions about an end game here to end the killing and to come to some kind of political settlement over the territorial claims. One of our writers says Orban needs to be careful. They might provoke a color revolution in Hungary soon. That would be your former colleagues in the Central Intelligence Agency. Yeah, and let's not leave Victoria Nuland out of it. Correct. She's the expert at this sort of thing. And there has been, as I'm sure you're aware, considerable pressure from the U.S. Embassy in Budapest attacking the Orban government on various levels. And this has been unrelenting in the last year or so. Wow. And this has been unrelenting in the last year or so. Well, Phil Giraldi, always a pleasure, my dear friend.

Thank you so much for joining us, for your time and for your comments. Thank you. We'll see you again soon. More as we get it, my dear friends. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.