Judging Freedom - Ukraine Talking with China - fmr CIA Jack Devine

Episode Date: April 26, 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.

joins us now. Jack, always a pleasure. Thank you for coming back here. Two news items that I want to call to your attention. The Washington Post reports just about an hour ago, Russia can fund its war against Ukraine for another year despite sanctions, leaked document says. Are you surprised to hear that? No, I would be surprised if they couldn't support it. I mean, it doesn't say how they're going to support it. In other words, are they going to support it in a way that's very painful or not? I've never doubted they could support it. Are they going to be able to improve their position? Are they going to be able to develop a new army? No. But will they be able to continue for a year?

So are the Ukrainians. We always underestimate the stamina, how long people can stay in a fight. It's perpetual. Does the CIA have its finger on the areas of the Russian economy suffering, if any, suffering because of the American imposed sanctions? That's a good question. I can't answer that definitively. I mean, you can't answer it because of national security reasons or because you don't know the answer? Because I don't know the answer. I think we've had a history of getting it wrong. In other words, remember we used to take pictures of how much wheat was being grown

and what the economy was like. And it almost always turned out to be less robust than we thought. Okay. I'm just saying that, you know, I wouldn't, I would say we probably have a better sense that we might've had years ago because there is more access there than there was during the Stalin time, for example. Right. So does the American intelligence community focus on things like economics or does it just focus on politics and military and secrets?

When I was joining the agency, they tested us and he said, oh, you make a great economic analyst. Thank God. Thank God. Thank God I didn't get the job. I mean, I'm interested in this subject. I'd rather be a spymaster any day. But my point is, there's always been a great interest in economics and in the economic structure and GDP and those things. They're not as, the one area that isn't covered is like the business area. And that's because it's complicated. But I think the agency has a long history and I think its reporting has been really high quality. It did, upstanding by Russia, wasn't always the best. Okay.

I'm going to run a clip right now from your adversary on this show i don't know if the two of you have ever met though he's offered to meet you at i don't have any well duels what do i get to pick the weapon i don't have adversaries i'd be able to like all right maybe that's the wrong word uh colonel douglas mcgregor had the following to say about the reliability of American intel. This is just 15 minutes ago, Jack. Take a listen. We in the West do not know the stability of President Xi in office. We do not know if he were to acquiesce to peace negotiations now and cause a ceasefire. Well, Judge, when have our intelligence services warned us effectively of much of anything? I mean, I remember in 1989 when everything began

to collapse in the Soviet East Europe, people were stunned. Just a year or two before, people were telling me, I see no evidence for any undermining of the broad consensus in the Soviet elite and in Eastern Europe for the continuation of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet state system. It all happened very, very quickly. No one seemed to get it. I think Murray Fischbach, he was the demographer, he was the only one who'd been predicting the imminent collapse of the Soviet Union since the mid-70s on the basis of demographics alone. But nobody else did. So why should we be surprised now that we don't know what Xi really thinks? We don't know his real position. We don't understand what's really

happening in China. We're too busy projecting ourselves onto everyone else. Yeah, well, that's an interesting comment. I mean, a lot of statements without a lot of facts, but you don't know what the government knows. I would just say the agency has been a robust agency for a long time, funded by both the Republicans and Democrats. And it's the first briefing of the day with the president. And they must be getting something pretty good. Now, the things that stand out, I mean, of course, there's failures in it for sure. And I'm a critic of some of them and why. But let's just stick to your first

point instead of the general swap it swipe it you know no law enforcement's any good no one to tell I mean that go ahead go ahead but what about the stability of uh of uh of Putin now I know no no no Jack the question was the stability of Zelensky. If he acquiesces to President Xi's request for a ceasefire, is somebody in his own government going to kill him? Well, first of all, I see no indication Zelensky's at all interested in it. I'm not the intelligence world, but I have a lot of fingers in different pies. I see no reason. Logic would tell me, why would you acquiesce when you have the better hand here? Let me make a point that's really bothering me, Judge, lately, and it's universal and all the media is saying, you know,

the Ukrainians have to show progress on the offensive if we're going to keep funding them. Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. You just moved the bar. This is a guy you offered a ticket to fly out of there. This is the guy that your guests were saying was going to be crushed by the 300,000-man Soviet army reconstituted. None of that happened. The Ukrainians have been amazingly effective in a standstill. That is a victory. The guy is losing in this. Putin can't go back and say, I want to tell the world, I have a standstill. That is a victory. The guy is losing in this. Putin can't go back and say, I want to tell the world, I have a standstill with the Ukrainians. I haven't moved with that. Do the Ukrainians still control Bakhmut after fighting there for six months?

Do the Russians? No one seems to know. Fighting over one little location and that's war. I mean, that's war. It's hell for those there. But that's not a decisive battle. Neither side is saying it's a decisive battle. It's a morale battle or a psychological battle. I agree with you on that. Don't set the bar. And it's Republicans and Democrats.

This is everybody saying, oh, they have to push. They're basically saying they've got to push the Russians out of Ukraine in order for us to keep funding. It's absurd. And they're missing the op-ed. They're missing the op-ed, which says that the key to stability in this world is pushing hard on the Russians and getting rid of Putin. And they're missing that. It's like, well, you got to make it offensive. You have to take, you know, you have to take Moscow. I mean, it's absurd, but it's bought in. I have to respect the threat that it represents that people could write off Ukraine because of this silly idea that somehow they have to beat the Russians on the battlefield. Holding them is a big win. I want people to recognize that.

Okay. This is from the Times of London, a credible publication. And I don't know if you know this person. Ukrainian Brigadier General Sergei Melnik, M-E-L-N-I-K, told Spain's El Pais, E-L-P-A-I-S, a well-regarded Spanish newspaper, newspaper that Ukraine has already lost most of its professional soldiers and that Ukraine, this is a quote, will need four to six times as many troops as Moscow has fielded in its ongoing military campaign, close quote, if it is to break through the defenses built by Russian forces in their current position. Well, he must have been having a little bit. He must have been having a little sip of vodka when he was talking. I mean, it's all nonsense.

Those numbers are outrageously wrong. I hope they misquoted the general, okay, or that he was tipsy. It's nonsensical. Jack, are you serious? How can a Ukrainian general get this wrong? Well, it wouldn't be the first American general to get anything wrong either. I mean, what do you mean how he got it wrong? As I said, I see no logic in what he's saying.

Support it. You need how many times the Russians? I mean, it's mathematically crazy. I can't imagine that he would say that. Okay. It's sober. You need how many times the Russians? I mean, it's mathematically crazy. I can't imagine that he would say that. Okay. It's sober. I'm just saying, I do not accept the credibility of El Pais and the London Times if they're sticking by that story and that he's saying it. It really, it stretches my imagination, the absurdity of the comments he's making.

Okay. President Xi of China. I don't talk strongly about people. I'm very nice on Mondays and Tuesdays. You're a sweetheart. President Xi of China and President Zelensky recently had a conversation, lengthy and according to President Zelensky, meaningful phone call. The first they've had since the war began 16 months ago, as a result of which both sides said China is willing to become closer to Ukraine. I guess that means economically closer, if Ukraine is willing to consider a ceasefire in negotiations? They're not going to consider a ceasefire in negotiations, right? The Chinese were very heavily invested in Ukraine. People don't realize how much money they

poured into Ukraine. Ukraine is part of China's strategy as well. They're not absolutely thrilled with Putin's actions, all right, but they're in it together and they have a common enemy in their mind. But a ceasefire, you know, people can talk about it. There is no reason for a ceasefire. You know, Ukrainians understand that, that a ceasefire does nothing but help the Russians. There's no reason for a ceasefire. Neither side is going to honor it. What is what is President Xi's goal to bring about a ceasefire, to offer to help rebuild Ukraine and to have Ukraine come into China's economic orbit? I don't see any of that. I mean, I think if I were looking at. Well, you just said that the Chinese are heavily

invested in Ukraine. They were, but Putin's invasion didn't help them very much on those Okay, so their goal would be to end the war so that their investments can produce income, no? No, this is a political gesture. This is like, this is theater. This can't be taken seriously. She went there. They had the meeting. But there's nothing real there, Judge. There's nothing that no one's going to take this to step two. You know, it reminds me, I don't want to pick on them, but, you know, the Americans came up with an agreement with the Chinese. We were going on each other and we weren't going to do cyber attacks. It was a useless statement. This is useless as well. China is not going to bring this problem to an end. Putin is stuck. I can't

say it enough. When he crossed into that country, he cannot, he can't have a ceasefire and think that somehow he succeeded. And he's not a guy that wants to fail. He's going to fight until he's really pushed out. Some people will not accept a ceasefire. I think they do polls on it, and you can watch the poll. But the polls are so high on that the Ukrainian people do not want to have the lines drawn with Russia because they do not trust us. Here's NBC News 15 minutes before we went on air. China's Xi says he will send representatives to Ukraine, hold talks on crisis. Believable or not? Well, he'll send representatives. It doesn't mean

you have to have an agreement. This is the point. People can come visit, talk, offer. Zelensky's going to accept everybody, hope that there's something in it. He's doing the right thing. I don't blame him for saying she. But there's nothing there to agree to, Judge. People just have to get over it. We now have the Russians made their offense.

Remember the big one that all of my adversaries talked about and turned out to be nothing. Now they're saying the Ukrainians have to defeat the Russians, and that's not going to happen either. So these negotiations, I want peace. I want peace. But you have to have, you know, you have to have their hands. I know, I know, I know.

Kill for peace, right, Jack? Sometimes it's necessary. If someone, you know, if someone starts shooting you and your family and, you know, yeah, you want peace. But, you know, you're going to get it after you push them off your lawn and settle the score. Tell me what you think of this. Even these countries of the former Soviet Union do not have an effective status in international law, since there is no international agreement that would specify their status as sovereign countries. I'm not sure what to call it, all the stands? Chinese ambassador to Paris. What is he talking about?

What countries? What do you think he's talking about? I guess he's talking about the Baltic states saying they're not legitimate sovereign countries. This can't possibly be the public policy of the government of China, can it? Well, I don't know the answer to that. But if so, it's not really very sound, right? Go tell the people in the Balkans that they're not an independent state. I mean, really, good luck.

Not the people I know in the Balkans. They're fighting words. They're fighting words. The military gear that we have given is now up to $68 billion. It's including a few billion in cash. Is it from our surplus or from our substance that we ourselves need should we ever have to defend ourselves or an ally? The way I think it's working is we're giving them high-quality stuff, but we're using money to backfill. In other words, they're not getting money. They're getting weapons, and then the money is going to restoring them.

Okay, and the war. We have to. Look, when we did the war in Afghanistan, I think it was just the covert part. We didn't even have an army on the ground, and it was a billion dollars a year, right? $62 billion to fund overtly. I mean, it's not exactly. And that was how many years ago, Judge? That's almost 30 years ago,

over 30 years. It's up to $68 billion. Yeah, so $68 billion for this is not exactly World War II. Okay, but the Wall Street Journal, your publisher, reports... Others have published me, Judge. Fairness, others have published.

Okay. Reports on April 24. That's published me, Judge. Fairness, others have published. Okay. Reports on April 24, that's just two days ago. Weapons makers can't hire enough workers as Ukraine war drives demands. I think that's true. I think there's, you know, a tremendous spike and the Russians are having a terrible time as well. So I want to talk about briefly American preparedness because your adversaries are telling me that we are giving from our substance and that we can't replenish it fast enough because of the Wall Street Journal accurate reporting that we can't hire enough workers fast enough

to replenish fast enough what we've given away. Is that a danger to national security, Jack? Let me give you a vignette from my experience in Afghanistan. I had the job to go over and talk to the head of the three-star general in the Pentagon. I want all your stingers, all of them. He said, you can't have all my stingers. The troops don't have them. I said, General, you know, the fighting war

is in Afghanistan, and I get that, right? The CIA needed stingers from the military. That's what you're telling us. He sent me away. I called the White House and said, listen, the General seems pretty stuck on this issue. They said, go back tomorrow. Well, I went to see him. That's what you here. But the question is, and this, I want to go back to the op-ed, I keep drowning, but it's not trivial when I write them. I don't write them every day and they're not published every day. And that is breaking Russia and China apart,

it weakens and changes the balance of power, which creates more stability. Do we really think the Chinese are going to go to Taiwan tomorrow? Are they going to go this year? I don't think there's any intelligence estimate. I don't think anybody that I know that they're going to expect that to happen. Why are you backfilling? You cannot, you can't not do your fighting war so you can backfill so you're ready for the next war. You're trying to do it as fast as you can, but that's not a good strategy. And I would just tell you, those stingers that went to Afghanistan changed that war, changed history. And that's what's going to happen.

I want to talk about Afghanistan, please. Does President Xi want a ceasefire or does he not? President Xi. He does not. He would like a ceasefire, sure. But if it means Putin falling and the government falling, well, maybe not. What does that ceasefire mean? Is that what he wants?

He's going to have a ceasefire because he's going to agree to Putin relief? If so, Zelensky will sign it. But that's not going to happen. So, yeah. But, you know, Afghanistan, but it wasn't Afghanistan, it's about how you fight wars. It's about when you give up weapons, when do you take out of your supply and run the risk and you have to fill it? That's the thing that my adversaries, quote unquote, don't seem to understand. Let's get ready for China and let Ukraine go down the tube. Tell me again how that works. Tell me how sophisticated thinking that is. Really. I'm sorry. I'm feisty because I've had like six calls today that have got me pumped up. I think you've had a lot. I'm on fire today, Josh. I'm on fire. But I'm very upset.

I'm upset about people saying the Ukrainians now have to really beat the Russians or otherwise we should walk. That's such really poor policy. All right. So what has become of the so-called spring offensive that we've all been waiting for, the Ukrainian spring offensive, Jack. What happened to the Russian offensive? That never happened. The spring offensive, I believe, will take place, but it's not going to be the spring offensive that the pundits are talking about, like they're going to drive them out of the Crimea. So that's not going to happen. I'm saying if Zelensky holds the line and they don't make progress, Putin is in deeper trouble. If we get to September and the battle

lines are the same, that's when his problems begin at home. Putin's or Zelensky's? Putin's. Zelensky, as long as he keeps fighting and holds his ground, he's solid. What happens to him if he decides to engage in a ceasefire and negotiations? Won't happen. Is he assassinated? I won't speculate it. It won't happen. Because the U.S. won't let it happen.

No, I think he, I take him for his word. This guy's turned out to be quite a tough customer. Just because he was an entertainer doesn't mean he isn't politically savvy. No, I think he's a true believer. Don't underestimate him. Don't underestimate Putin. He's a true believer too. One of them is going to be wrong and I'm betting on the new guy. Jack Devine, no matter what you say, it's a pleasure and I welcome it. Well, you got me on a fiery day. All right. You're actually much better when you're fiery, and I apologize for raising my voice a few minutes ago.

I like you when you're not, but that's okay. If you like more of this, whether you agree with Jack Devine or not, like and subscribe. More as we get it. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.