Judging Freedom - Ukraine Russia War - Zelenskyy in Poland

Episode Date: April 5, 2023

This new year, why not let Audible expand your life by listening? Audible CA contains over 890,000 total titles within its current library, including audiobooks, podcasts, and exclusive Audible Originals that'll inspire and motivate you. Tap into your well-being with advice and insight from leading professionals and experts on better health, relationships, career, finance, investing, and more. Maybe you want to kick a bad habit or start a good one. If you're looking to encourage positive change in your life one day and challenge at a time, look no further than Tabitha Brown's I Did a New Thing, 30 Days to Living Free. In the audiobook, Tab shares her own stories and those of others alongside

gentle guidance and encouragement to create these incredible changes for yourself and see what good can come from them. Trust me, listening on Audible can help you reach the goals you set for yourself. Start listening today when you sign up for a free 30-day trial at audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, April 5, 2023. It's about 325 in the afternoon. Apologies for the late

start. Technical difficulties as can happen. Jack Devine returns to our show today. Jack, always a pleasure. Welcome back, my dear friend. Since we were together last, President Xi and President Putin had an open, public, notorious hugging each other in Moscow. President Xi publicly suggested in the presence of President Putin that there be a ceasefire in the war in Ukraine. What do you make of that, my dear friend? Well, he means, I guess, for the Ukrainians to stop firing. And look, remember, he's addressing not just Putin, he's addressing the world. He also said a relationship limits. So I guess I would say you have to take both statements with a grain of salt.

A ceasefire, I don't know if that appeals. I don't think it appeals to either side. Well, he wouldn't have said that in Putin's, you in Moscow, in the Kremlin, without notifying them, Putin and his folks, and getting consent ahead of time. Well, I don't know about getting consent. I agree with you. It's hard to imagine that he would have been freewheeling such a blatant statement. I think it's in maybe the Russians' interest to have a ceasefire because they're not doing very well and they're quote-unquote offensive, right?

Ceasefire would give them a chance to regroup. I don't see, I really don't see the point of it, though, to be honest with you, other than it's good theater for the Chinese to say that. And I guess it's no harm to the Russians to say that because both sides know they're not going to have a ceasefire. Isn't it good for humanity that there be a...

Oh, I think we've lost Jack. All right, I'm going to talk until he comes back. Isn't it good for humanity that there be a ceasefire? He'd look good. I mean, in other words, we lost you, Jack, we lost you for about the last 30 seconds. So let me ask my question again. The last thing you were saying was it's not good for either side that there be a ceasefire, although it might benefit the Russians more. Isn't it good for humanity that there be a ceasefire

and negotiations rather than negotiations while people are killing each other or rather than no negotiations at all? We lost it again, Judge. Okay. Can you hear us now, Jack? Yeah, I can hear you. Okay. Isn't it good for humanity that there be a ceasefire while negotiations go on? Isn't that better than negotiations while fighting is going on, or better than no negotiations at all? Well, suppose someone broke into your yard, right, and decided they were going to occupy three-fourths of the yard or half of the yard or something and said, let's have a ceasefire. You might not say, well, wait, wait, before we ever go to a ceasefire, move back to where you started, right? So it's a non-starter. I mean,

you know what's interesting, Judge? No one's really picked up on this and made this a big story. Let's go to the table and have the ceasefire. Because I think everybody knew that it was more of a gesture than a reality. Your point's a good one. There shouldn't be war, you know, and there should be peace and you should have ceasefires, but you have to take the other party seriously. And if it's.

No, I don't think this is going to work, Jack. We'll keep losing you. The last thing we heard was you have to take the other party seriously. So can you pick up from there? You have to believe that they're serious, right? And so consequently, I don't think anyone believes the Russians have any, Putin has any intention of not pursuing this until he's, until it's shown that he can't do it. And so I don't think he's there yet.

All right. Even at the height of the Vietnam War, before your time and mine, the State Department was speaking to Russia and there was some communications with North Vietnam. It appears there's no U.S.-Russia communications now, no Ukraine-Russia communications now. Isn't it always better, or correct me if I'm wrong, you're the intel guy, isn't it always better if there is some communication going on even while hostilities are going on. Yeah, I'm not sure, Judge, that there aren't any communications. I think when the drone was hit, there was communications back and forth. I think there's a way to communicate in a crisis. What you're talking about is having serious discussions about where are we going to go in the war. I don't think

they're taking place, right? Everybody's encouraging everybody. Look, Macron was in China telling Xi, look, let's stop supporting the Ukraine effort, right? So Everyone's trying to get the thing resolved. I've said this and I'll say it again today. You don't have the conditions for an agreement. Putin cannot settle without a victory, and the Ukrainians are not going to let him have a victory. They're going to continue fighting until both sides are not able to carry on. My own view, it ends in a static situation, and this is a loss for Putin. A draw is a loss. I know that's Yogi Berra. Why does the U.S. want war if it appears that there's going to be a draw? Why is Joe Biden objecting to a ceasefire he doesn't

believe that Putin's serious no more than I do there's no reason to believe that Putin wants to ceasefire he could have a ceasefire immediately just stop firing the Ukrainians won't you know we'll go along with that well a ceasefire has to be has to be bilateral you have to sit down and you have to have

an agreement what is it What are we agreeing to? Of course, of course, of course. So they don't have, what I'm saying is I don't, and I said this last time, sticking with it. I don't see the conditions for a concession. Putin is locked in a corner and so are the Ukrainians. What do you mean Putin is locked in a corner? The Russians have taken Bakhmut. Everybody now acknowledges that. Maybe, maybe. What do you mean Putin is locked in a corner? The Russians have taken Bakhmut. Everybody knows this thing.

Maybe. Maybe. Let me say that's taking one town. You're this great power. You're going to come into Ukraine and you're going to roll right over Kiev and you take a town and that's victory? So I don't know. First of all, I don't think they've taken the town. That's my understanding.

But even if they did, how does that become a victory? I don't know. First of all, I don't think they've taken the town. That's my understanding. But even if they did, how does that relate? How does that become reasons. It appears President Putin has won it. It's not like they've taken Chicago or New York, but this is some sort of a breakthrough emotionally and in terms of morale for the Russian troops, is it not? Well, I mean, if it is, God bless them. I mean, I think taking one town accelerates. All right, not working out well today. I love talking with you, Jack, and I know the audience loves hearing you, even though they disagree. The Ukrainians did not put everything into the battle, okay? I mean, whoever's telling you that is not accurate. Why didn't they put everything into the battle? Well, let me speculate. Maybe there's round two. Maybe there's an offensive and a

counteroffensive. So I'm not saying that's what's going to happen. I'm just saying I guarantee you they didn't put everything in all right switching gears uh was the cia involved in this assassination at a at a cafe in saint petersburg of vlad vladen tartarsky we'll actually show you the bombing gary you can show it watch this in saint petersburg vlad len tartarsky a well-known Russian military blogger, was presented with a statue. A bomb was hidden inside, according to Russian state media, and when it exploded, it killed Tartarsky, injuring at least 32 others. That was courtesy of our friends at CBS News. Apparently, a young woman handed him a bust of himself, which he took. She then sat

in the front row while it exploded. So it's not clear if she knew that there were explosives in it, even though- Judge, let me answer it this way. It's inconceivable that the agency would be involved in a terrorist event in St. Petersburg. It's just, it's inconceivable. Would they have known ahead of time? It's an active war. They know what Ukraine intel is up to. Would they have known ahead of time that this was going to happen?

My, I find it very, very hard to believe that that's what happened. Now, if you go back to the Bush days, he warned Gorbachev the coup was coming, right? The Americans warned him a coup was coming. If there was a terrorist event being planned, I think we would be, by rules, regulation would have to do something to intervene in that. And knowing that the Ukrainians, if they did it, you know, it's a dispute who did it, would be disinclined to advise us. All right. Is this the type of behavior of the Ukraine intelligence services? Is it more likely than not that this woman was an agent, witting or unwitting, of the Ukraine intelligence services when she handed this guy a bust of himself with a bomb.

I don't see any pattern to this. The Ukrainians, they're going to be setting off bombs all day in Moscow. They have not. I mean, this is why I think this has to be. Sometimes after any of these incidents, you have to let the information settle in a little bit, and the truth will hopefully come forward. But the Ukrainians do not have a campaign of the size of this.

We're losing you again, Jack. But to the best of my knowledge, I see no report. I see nothing that indicates that such a campaign exists i really i just don't see it okay uh remember when you start down this road i mean there's two two-way streets right so once you decide you're going to start blowing up things you change the course of the battle i don't think that's done well my inclination is to well first of all let's wait and see but one thing i guarantee you, from my perspective, not inside information, but based on the years of my experience in that building,

the agency was absolutely not involved. Congress would have to be known. I mean, it's just inconceivable. But you also said the agency wasn't involved in the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline, right? Well, they're officially on record saying they're not. And therefore you believe them. Well, let me postulate this. When you are the Secretary of State and you state something before the American people, you better be really confident that that's true. Otherwise, you're going to have a tremendous political black guy, which you and everybody else will help contribute to.

And I would as well. I expect when the Secretary of State says, we're not involved, we're not involved. this political black guy, which you and everybody else will help contribute to, and I would as well. I expect when the Secretary of State says, we're not involved, we're not involved. Yeah, so I accept that. Now Truman on the U2 said, and this is the lesson, he said, oh, it wasn't ours, and then Khrushchev showed the downed plane.

I think we learned a lesson there. The plausible denial, it doesn't work with the American people right now. You just simply have to tell it straight. I don't know any case in recent times where such a blatant statement, we weren't involved, was put forth. And if so, shame on us for making that statement. Okay. ago, the FBI arrested a guy named Sergei Cherkazov, charged him with being a Russian agent

masquerading as a Brazilian soccer player. Now that's real espionage. Okay, let me finish, Jack. A week later, your friends, the FSB, arrested a Wall Street Journal reporter who had just

written, and there he is, a fellow New Jerseyan of yours and mine, who had just written a negative piece in the Wall Street Journal about the effect of sanctions and the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline on the Russian economy. Is there a connection there? Well, there may well be. First of all, I would say the Russian charge is unfounded. They will develop proof, but you'll have to take it with a huge grain of salt, like five pounds. But the espionage case, the Brazilian is really interesting because that is a real clandestine, what we call unofficial officer working abroad and it's like Abel was in the 40s.

In other words, that's a real spy case, right? Now, in order to trade a real spy, you usually get a real spy, right? Or you offer two semi-spies. So it could well be connected, or they may have just been flat furious with the coverage of this journalist, which I think is politically,

and I'm coming increasingly to the view that Putin is nowhere near as political depth as I thought he was, even though I was very critical of him on many things. So I think it was a bad move by the Russians. So, Jack, is this the new, I'm going to assume you can hear me, even though we can't see you. Is this the new diplomacy?

Jack, is this the new diplomacy? Arrest Britney Spears so you can get Victor Boot, of all people, home. Arrest Evan Gershkovitz so you can get Sergei Cherkhov off home. Is this the new diplomacy that the U.S. and that the Russians are playing? You have to worry about it because this is, again, like kidnapping. Once it starts, you know, one of the things when we first faced the kidnapping thing was, do you negotiate with them, right? And the decision was made fairly quick. If you negotiate, then someone else is going to be kidnapped. So if it starts to be like a marketplace, I mean, God forbid, everybody's, it's fair game. So I'm hopeful that isn't a new dimension of diplomacy

because I just see it'll turn into chaos. Earlier today in Moscow, President Putin addressed the new U.S. ambassador to Moscow and some other ambassadors as well from the West and to their face accused the U.S. of being responsible for what the Russians call the color revolution in 2014, where a popularly elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine was thrown out and Zelensky and his predecessor, his predecessor first, and then Zelensky came in. Were you surprised that Putin would be that direct to the face of the American ambassador on national

television making that allegation? No, I think he's prepared to make any allegation that he thinks he can sell domestically, right? But I would call Putin not a primary source. In other words, when he tells you something, you know, don't take it at face value. It's all, I mean, he's trying to sell a message. He made a tremendous blunder and he's trying to figure out how to get out of it. You call it a tremendous blunder. The Russians keep moving west. The Ukrainians are not moving east. How do you call it a blunder? Judge, we were on this show. In the last two months, you were telling me these great wizards of war were saying the Russians have the 300,000 man army and are going to roll right over Ukraine. Here we are, 150,000 troops went in and they may or may not have taken a town.

I mean, he is having a hard time. This is not victory. Anybody that thinks he's won something, I mean, God bless you. But, I mean, I don't know how I could hold my head and invade a country and move a few kilometers. So I think he's in trouble. I think he's in serious trouble that's why there's a fight between or between the regular military and the wagner group why they're trying to figure out who the blame for this and guess where all roads lead on this whether it ends up leading to putin so

i this is not a big offensive is this it i mean this is what everybody all your friends were talking about i mean, I was more right than I thought I was when I said they would all peter out. Now he's going to bring in another group and they're losing at the rate of 800 people, 800 soldiers a day. Multiply that by 300 days. Let's just say they take off a few days. And then you think about the parents and the cousins. All right, we lost you again. We lost you again, Jack. They're losing at the rate of maybe six to one.

I mean, you know, and you say, well, a lot of Russians. That's a lot of bloodshed on his hand. With his own people. With his own people. If that's victory, my God. You know, let's revisit. I'm trying to think of somebody Alamo. All right.

We'll end with that. Jack Devine, always a pleasure, my dear friend. We'll have you back again when our connection is a little better. More as we get it, my dear friends. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.