Judging Freedom - "U.S. Keeping Ukraine in a State of War"- Kremlin w/Alastair Crooke fmr Brit ambassador

Episode Date: September 6, 2023

"U.S. Keeping Ukraine in a State of War"- Kremlin w/Alastair Crooke fmr Brit ambassadorSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, September 6, 2023. Alistair Crook joins us from Italy. Alistair, always a pleasure. Thank you for coming here. Over the holiday weekend here in the U.S., we received word of an uptick in the public alliance between North Korea and Russia, that Kim Jong-un would actually be visiting President Putin in Vladivostok, and it was revealed that Russia has given substantial offensive weaponry, ICBMs,

to North Korea, capable of reaching anywhere in the mainland U.S. from North Korea. So a couple of questions. One, could this have happened without either the involvement or the tacit approval of President Xi of China? And two, how significant is this for U.S. national security purposes? Again, let's not sort of cast it in threat to the United States per se. What it is, is part of strategic and negotiating position. Just in this last period, we've had the United States, if you like, rekindling Syria, trying to start a popular, if you like, revolution to throw President Assad out of office.

And it's more complicated. There's tensions between Russian airplanes and American airplanes and American drones. And there's a heating up also with the Kurds. and there is also a rising of tension. Someone is stirring up the Islamic extremists. They've been let out of prison, and Islamic extremists, who are the opponents of President Assad, are being, if you like, encouraged again. So this is a quid pro quo. Okay, so essentially the United States would like, as it seems to be losing the offensive in Ukraine, a success, and one success could be the removal of Assad. Compensation, if you like, an equilibrate, losing the offensive before you get to North Korea. Has the United States, and if your answer to this is yes, the American public doesn't know it, ramped up its military activity, its level of violence in Syria in order to remove President Assad of late?

Yes, with aircraft they're putting in HIMARS. There is a part of Syria that is occupied by American forces. About one-third of Syria is occupied by American forces with the Kurds supporting them. Did I miss something or did the United States Congress declare war on Syria. Well, that goes back a long way. They've been at it since whatever it is, 2011. But, you know, this is like the Cuban Missile Crisis, okay? First of all, America put missiles in Turkey. Russia then put missiles in Cuba. Eventually, Kennedy brought back the missiles from Turkey. Russia then put missiles in Cuba. Eventually, Kennedy brought back the

missiles from Turkey, and eventually there was a solution. But this is a simple question of an escalation to try and say to the United States, be careful. If you're going to escalate further in Ukraine, there are ways in which we can respond to that. This is one response because what we've seen in this period is, as the offensive has weakened, as the offensive has run down, what has been happening? Well, someone is giving a green light to Ukraine, firing more and more drones into Moscow, into airports, and also using, if you like, high-speed drones, submersible drones on the Black Sea to attack the bridges or vehicles. So it is a Black Sea war and also a drone war. To compensate, Ukraine is not winning anywhere at all. It made no gains on the battlefield, so it's compensating with these drones. Someone's given them the green light to do that.

And so now also we have escalation in Syria. And so is it a great surprise that suddenly you get new missiles going into North Korea? And I'm sure that this has been coordinated with China on strict understandings. This is not about to be a sort of, you know, an attack on the United States at all. But it's a very clear message. It's saying, listen, you go on with us, you go on with what you're doing in Japan, you go on with what you're doing with South Korea. And don't be surprised that we raise the stakes too, on the other side, it's quite a simple, it should be obvious to Washington, that this is not some great new threat from Kim Il-Jung against the United States. This is Russia and China saying to the United States, in this war, you escalate, don't be surprised.

What's the answer? Well, you want to revisit these problems, and perhaps you start to think about how to find a way to de-escalate and get out of this. And the problem is that I don't think Washington has a clue about, you know, what it would take, you know, to open a channel of communication is one thing. But what are you going to say on that channel of communication? What are you going to put to the Russians? They cannot understand that the reason why it is that Russia says, we will not accept a frozen conflict, we will not accept, if you like, to negotiate some sort of outcome with you, as we did in March in Istanbul last year, an outcome that was then subsequently cancelled. We won't do that because we see that it is the ultra-nationalists and the neo-fascists in Kiev who are predominant and influencing policy. It's quite clear that they're in charge of policy. I mean, look at the ridiculous Zelensky peace plan, 10-point peace plan, which is demanding Russian complete capitulation. This is typical of the ultra-nationalists. They will go on to try and destroy Russia at any cost. They are very, very extreme in their hatred for Russia and all things Russian.

And so it's simple that Putin is not going to accept for the West to remilitarize Kiev that is predominated. This is not the Ukrainian military. This is the ultra-nationalists who predominate, who control Zelensky. While that holds, going and saying, let's sit down and have a talk about, you know, a ceasefire in Ukraine. It doesn't really even address the questions about, you know, what happens in Donbass and Luhansk. It's, you know, they haven't started to think about how to manage this, I believe. You've given us a marvelous, almost world tour of how all of this is interconnected, Alistair. And it's a brilliant and excellent analysis. I'd like to unpack it a little bit. First, does just about

everyone now recognize that the Ukrainian offensive, except for the Wall Street Journal, has failed? I think that's moot. I mean, I think it is recognized. And I think it's even recognized in the White House. They can't completely shut their eyes to that. The question is, do they accept it? I mean, are they able to assimilate that and deal with it? And I'm not sure. That's the big question. Can they deal with it? I don't know. And so maybe they see it as just easier to go on escalating and allowing the Ukrainians to farm more drones at Moscow because they're not actually killing people in Moscow.

It's not working in the sense that the Russians are not being terrified by it or actually just hardening their attitudes as a consequence of it. But, I mean, there are limits and one day it may go wrong and then, you know, things will escalate further. So I think it's just they can't manage it. They can't, you know, even if they know it, then just won't deal with it. Here's what they said about it yesterday. This is Jake Sullivan in the White House press room. Providing weapons to Russia for use on the battlefield to attack

grain silos and the heating infrastructure of major cities as we head into winter to try to conquer territory that belongs to another sovereign nation. This is not going to reflect well on North Korea, and they will pay a price for this in the international community. I know that this is an enormous benefit to North Korea, this new public alliance. It elevates the status of Kim Jong-un. Is he a serious international player, or is he an unstable person who's only there because he inherited this power from his father? Well, you know, I don't claim I've ever had to deal with him directly, but Russia has had a long connection, a deep connection with North Korea. Relations with China have been a little bit more difficult. But don't forget, there's a common frontier

between North Korea and Russia, their neighbors. And so there has been sort of trade and to-ing and fro-ing between Russia and North Korea for some time. I think that, you know, we underestimate North Korea is a seriously capable small country. But in technology and in their determination to produce these weapons, they're very sophisticated. So are Russia in a different way. But now Russia will be giving them the ability to increase their leverage on Washington. Now will Washington respond to that in some way? What will North Korea do? South Korea, I'm not sure, and Japan.

But I mean, this is very clearly an increase in leverage. And I'm sure China, you know, even though it's, you know, not that friendly towards North Korea, understands fully what's going on, that Russia is giving North Korea leverage as the United States increases its posture in the Pacific. Is Russia buying ammunition from North Korea? Is that part of this exchange? And does Russia need it? I mean, Russia has, as I understand it, Alistair, the most aggressive, successful arms manufacturing entities in the world with virtually limitless natural resources with which to manufacture these things. So is it buying from North Korea? And does it really need anything from North Korea? Look, I can't give you chapter and verse on it, but my impression is, no, Russia doesn't need it.

It's increased its manufacturing. I mean, what has been clearly going on during these months is Russia has been increasing its munitions, its ability to supply logistics massively. And the next stage has been the increase in manpower of its army. But Russia does things in a sort of orderly way, and the first thing has been a big increase. And I think that I can't imagine for a moment that ahead of this winter, Russia hasn't been stockpiling in key areas, munitions like artillery shells, I mean, millions of them are being readied for whatever next is planned by Putin for the coming either the month or this winter. As we speak, the American Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, is in Kiev. One of those visits where he just pops up there. There's no announcement in advance

that he's coming. And he is announcing another $1 billion in military aid and in cash to the Ukrainian government. We don't know, Alistair, how close the White House is to running out of cash. The blank check that the previous Congress gave the president was $113 billion. Some estimates say he spent $48 billion. Some estimates say he spent $68 billion. Some estimates say he spent $100 billion. It's one of these crazy things about American bookkeeping. Nobody really knows what he spent. But Tony Blinken is there supposedly with a billion dollar gift to the Ukrainians.

How is this received in Moscow? Public display by America's chief diplomat showing up in wartime in Kiev with a check for a billion dollars? It's very badly received in Moscow because they just see that inevitably the West, you know, doesn't get the message. And I think this is one of the things that concerns me, having done negotiations, ceasefire negotiations, and trying to end conflicts over the years, is, you know, the worst, the most dangerous thing that you have is that when you persuade one of the parties to make some gesture, even if it's a small gesture, to indicate a willingness to talk or to come to some sort of an understanding about the future. And the other

side immediately sees this as weakness and doubles down on it or triples down on it. And I think this is a great thing that Putin is against. He's been very careful. He's waited. He's waited till the offensive has come to a full stop and failed. And then he's waiting to see what's the US and what's the European response to that. And the answer he's got is escalation, more money, more weapons, etc. And of course, he has to answer that in some way. And he will answer it in some way. He's been very careful to do this. But this is always a thing when you make a gesture by. It was 40,000 people. It's about enough to fill the Piazza del Popolo in Rome. I mean, not to take a city of three and a half

million. I mean, it was always obviously done as a sort of message saying, look, I'm serious. Can we have an agreement? And the answer was no. And the agreement remains no, no, no. And as I say, I don't think even the White House really has given much thought to what those talks would require. It's not just about Ukraine. It would be, yes, the security architecture of Europe but actually that's become so stale and sort of fixed now doesn't matter the key issue is how does um how is the West going to find a modus vivendi of its security sphere with that of the emerging security sphere of the Eurasian bloc. The Eurasian bloc has a security aspect, not just an economic and a

political one. We have a big security bloc coming up. Clearly, at some point, there will have to be a discussion how the West and the Eurasian security bloc are going to interact and not interact with one another. But I don't think, I don't hear anyone actually even discussing it or thinking about it at the moment, but that's coming up. This is what's happened with BRICS and everything. And now we'll have another, we'll have the SCO meeting very shortly. It's a security block too, not just a block about de-dollarization. Here's Dmitry Peskov, who's the official spokesperson for the Kremlin. Today, just a few hours ago, I'll read the English translation. We have heard repeated statements that Americans intend to continue to help Kyiv for as long as it takes. In other words, they are going to continue to support Ukraine in a state

of war and to wage this war to the last Ukrainian, sparing no money for this. That's how we perceive it. We know it. It's not going to affect the course of the special military operation. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov today, September 6, 2023. Surely you're not surprised by this. No, I just wish someone would hear it and take it in. I mean, it's clear. I would have thought it's clear enough what he's saying. Look, we've got to this point. We've got to the end of this phase. You know, the offensive has stopped. And what are you doing? You're escalating. Well, obviously, now you can expect a Russian offensive of some sort to compensate for that. That's coming. It's obvious. What then in the White House, in European capitals, is just so dangerous. They just cannot hear. He said it absolutely clearly.

We've got to the end of this point. What do you do? You send billions of money and you send new weapons. So you're escalating. So we're forced to escalate. We don't want to. We haven't asked for it, but you're forcing us. And you do it ostentatiously as the Secretary of State is doing, even as we speak. I know we have seen this before, but it is a brilliant analysis of Russian culture from an Eastern perspective. It's Viktor Orban speaking with my friend and former colleague, Tucker Carlson, just a week ago.

But it's profound, and I'd like you to listen to it again. To understand the Russians, it's profound and I'd like you to listen to it again. To understand the Russians, it's a difficult thing. So when we speak about politics, I mean Westerners, what is the focus point of our conversation? The focus point is freedom. How to provide more and more freedom to the people. When you speak on politics in Russia, this is not the number one issue. The number one issue is how to keep together the country. That generates a different kind of culture and understanding of politics. That creates a kind of military approach, always on security, safety, buffer zone, geopolitical approaches.

But we have to understand that we cannot beat them as we do just now. It's impossible. They will not kill their leader. They will never give it up. They will keep together the country and they will defend it. We finance more, they will invest more. If we send more technical equipments, they will produce more. So don't misunderstand the Russians. So they're not going to get sick of Putin and throw him out? Come on, it's a joke.

Does the West understand what Prime Minister Orban just so articulately expressed? PETER BAKER Absolutely no. They still continue to see Russia as weak, as incapable, as a sort of a mecanicalist state that is struggling against the weight of the combined West ranged against it. But actually what he was referring to, I think, is something more profound.

It's not just about freedom. Russians like freedom too. The West is very individualistic. Russia has a much more holistic sense of community, of Ruski Mir, the whole Russian people as a cultural, military, communal whole, and it melds into politics. It's not sort of separated as we have it in the West. If you like, it is there, it is not imposed, but it is part of people's consciousness. Just as their consciousness, they know their history,

they know their culture, and they know what the people is. And yes, exactly. It produces a very forceful, steadfast people in the face of adversity. Alistair Rook, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for accommodating my schedule today. And thanks always for your thoughtful and gifted analysis of the problems that confront us. We'll see you again next week. Thank you very much. There you have it, my friends. Major Matthew Ho at 11 o'clock this morning, Eastern. You know what we do here. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom, we are looking out for your liberty. Thank you.