All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 28, 2024 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
24:07
INTEL Roundtable w/ Johnson & McGovern - Early Edition Weekly Wrap
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Thursday, August 29, 2024.
We're all taking a long holiday weekend, so we're pretending this is the end of the week.
This is the Intelligence Community Roundtable with my dear friends Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern.
Larry's laughing because he probably has much to do after this.
It's not the end of the week for him, but gentlemen, welcome here.
Welcome every time we do this.
You're both doing double duty on the show.
Much appreciated.
Larry, to you first.
Are you surprised at the incursion into Kursk?
How long the invaders have been there and how it appears they keep expanding the land mass that they now control, which is now about 300 square miles.
A drop in the bucket compared to the size of Russia.
But a lot more than Vladimir Putin would like.
No, they're running around like a bunch of cockroaches you discover in your kitchen at night.
They don't control anything.
They don't control road networks.
How do they control those?
They don't have enough mobile artillery to do so.
They certainly don't have fixed-wing aircraft.
And they don't have rotary-wing aircraft.
So what they are, they're holed up in locations.
They're hiding out.
They are...
This isn't weakening, this is not draining Russia of manpower.
It's not forcing Russia to use up precious artillery rounds that it doesn't have.
That's the situation Ukraine is in.
It's not lacking for men, trained military personnel to throw into there.
So, you know, I think that at this point the Russians are content just to keep them holed up and, you know, take their time killing them off.
But this is probably one of the most feckless military operations since, you know, Montgomery came up with Operation Market Garden in World War II.
You know, waste a bunch of troops going nowhere.
Ray, what would be the purpose of this?
Is this a propaganda move?
For President Zelensky to impress his masters at Langley and in the White House?
Well, it fails my imagination to think that he could still think that.
I think it's more a Hail Mary pass to hope that he could provoke the Russians into reacting in such a way.
That the U.S. would have to come in with both feet.
That is, they'd have to approve all these longer-range missilery and all the other stuff that they promised.
In other words, the election is coming up.
God knows what's going to happen as far as Kiev is concerned with what happens on November 5th.
So this is sort of, in my view, sort of a last gasp to stir up trouble, make sure that the Russians come in and rise to debate.
Which, by the way, I don't think Putin's going to do.
And then see if the U.S. can be mousetrapped into even longer-range missillery and that kind of thing, that kind of support.
I don't think it's going to work.
But, you know, when you're down and you have just not much time left, you throw a Hail Mary pass.
I think Hail Mary passes in football have a better chance of succeeding.
And as we football fans know, they rarely succeed.
Larry, what about the assaults on the nuclear power plant?
Isn't that something of serious concern for the Kremlin?
Well, yes.
The Kremlin's been playing a propaganda game with that as well.
Let's not pretend that Russia's just sitting back.
Ukraine has tried to launch some drone attacks.
The likelihood that those drone attacks would actually create a major incident akin to what we saw with Chernobyl back in the spring of 1986, very, very, very unlikely.
That's not going to happen.
But Russia can make the point that it is Ukraine who is attacking and creating a danger for a nuclear plant like the one at And my understanding is that particular facility, it's one of the older ones and doesn't have the kind of containment structure around it that some of the newer ones do.
So, you know, it is, again, it's one of these desperation moves, as Ray noted, a Hail Mary pass with nobody down there to catch it.
Well, it seems to have aggravated...
Here is the Foreign Minister of Russia, a guy for whom both of you and I have a lot of respect, the senior diplomat amongst the diplomatic corps in the world.
He's been the Foreign Minister for 20 years, often referred to as the adult in the room.
Here is Foreign Minister Lavrov.
Two days ago, August 27th.
Americans have this direct association, these conversations, this talk of a world war.
They think that if this happens, it would only concern Europe, which is a very showing thing that reflects the mentality of those geopolitical strategists in the U.S. Because they are confident that they will just be safe across the ocean.
And in this situation, one has to understand that we have our own doctrine, a doctrine of using nuclear weapons, among other things.
And we are now making adjustments to this doctrine and the American government.
And, you know, these are Freudian sleep.
World War III is a bad thing because we do not want Europe to suffer.
That's the mentality of the Americans, mentality of masters that are sitting on the other bank across the ocean.
They are certain of their safety and security, and they are confident that there will be someone else.
To die for them, to do their dirty job for them, not only Ukrainians, but now Europeans as well.
So we heard these speculations regarding allowing to use not only the term shadows, but also American missiles, long-range missiles.
And in Washington, an anonymous source said that there is an ongoing effort, that they are looking into a request from Ukraine in a positive light.
I do not want to add anything to that.
The president has already spoken on this on many occasions, and we reaffirm this once again, that playing with fire, and they are like little kids who are playing games with matches.
It's a dangerous thing for adults who were trusted with nuclear weapons.
Don't think you're safe and secure just because the Atlantic Ocean is in front of you, and you're like children playing with matches, particularly when your vassal state is interested in attacking our nuclear plants.
Ray, what's your takeaway?
I think this is important.
Now, Lavrov, six months ago, talked about how the US was so lucky to be able to hide behind two great And he said, forget about it.
That's not the case anymore.
And the U.S., I hope, knows that that is not the case anymore, like World War II.
So it's a double message.
He's trying to raise the notion that the U.S. could suffer from all this.
But the other thing is that he's rhetorically sort of pinging on the Europeans.
Don't you see what happened to Ukraine?
Do you want the same thing to happen to you?
In other words, the U.S. is playing your game here and they're going to sacrifice you just like they will sacrifice Ukraine.
Now, that's more plausible.
But in my view, this whole nuclear stuff is kind of preemptive.
It's sort of like they're saying, look, Biden, you and Blinken and Sullivan, if you think that you can use a small tactical nuclear weapon, You hear that, Sullivan?
You hear that blinking?
We got them too.
Don't even think about it.
Now, bottom line for me is the Russians don't need to use any nukes, okay?
They're in the driver's seat.
The last thing they would do is use a nuke.
But they are afraid, and I've been saying this for a long time, I think they're understandably afraid that when push comes to shove and the only thing left on the weaponry shelf is a small, just a low-yield nuclear weapon that Blinken and Sullivan, rather than lose the war, rather than lose the election, rather than lose their freedom perhaps, would opt for that and would persuade Biden or maybe they have the codes themselves.
So I think it's preemptive, I think it's the sort of Larry, is the senior leadership of Russia telling the senior leadership of the United States, do not suppose that the American mainland is safe?
Yes.
I mean, what's going on here is the United States has been openly talking about putting a medium range ballistic missiles back into Europe that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
We've already put the F-16, at least six F-16s are there.
Well, let's take one off the board.
It's already dead along with the pilot.
But those F-16s also are capable of carrying nuclear weapons.
Russia's message through Lavrov and the Deputy Foreign Minister Rybkov and Across the board, it's very simple that if Russia's in a position where it believes the West is about to use a nuclear weapon against Russia, Russia will take action, and that action will include hitting the United States.
That simple.
And it is, what I worry about is that nobody in the West is taking this seriously.
They think the Russians are just talking hot air.
They're not.
I think they're 100% correct.
People in this program are taking it seriously, but it doesn't, unless they're whispering in each other's ears, it doesn't appear as though the Lincolns and Sullivans, Biden, if he even knows what's going on, is taking this seriously.
Well, let me take a footnote here, Judge.
Please, go ahead.
Set up a line here.
I think there's a danger in exaggerating the threat to the United States.
Let's go back and realize that if they bombed Washington or threw an ICBM at Washington, that would be under Russia as well.
They don't need to do that, okay?
All they need to do is remind these guys that, look, whatever you do in Ukraine or whatever you do to save Ukraine, we can do too.
In Europe, okay?
So I don't expect any escalation out of Europe here, the more so since Putin's in the progress seat.
He's winning.
He's got the upper hand against the line there in the eastern Ukraine.
He's going to go to the Dnieper anytime he wants, and he's going to destroy the rest of those folks in Kursk Oblast.
So why would he restart to just play weapons?
What that means is sending a missile to Washington, in my view, not quite correct.
Let me interject, Judge.
Ray, the issue is this.
The West is talking about putting ballistic...
That's what the Russians are reacting to in this.
And that's why they're saying they'll hit the United States.
They've been very clear about that.
They're not just offering that as a side note, because they are trying to send the message to Washington, which Washington, frankly, is not listening.
Do you have any evidence of anybody in D.C. listening to them?
No, we don't.
But do you think, Larry, that this was precipitated by the Russian perception, which Gil Doctorow says is not a perception, it's reality, of American involvement in the invasion in Kursk?
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, look, the imagery, this is 81 years to the date of the original Kursk battle.
Where Nazi tanks were running around.
It was Operation Settled at the time was the German name of the operation.
But yeah, no, I mean, they've been very specific about saying that we got German tanks with people wearing German swastikas and helmets on our territory, killing Russian civilians.
We said that we're going to put an end to it, and by God, they're going to put an end to it.
Right.
Yeah, I'd just like to...
The U.S. has missile installations in Poland and Romania now.
They are in capsules, meaning that you can't figure out what's in them.
They have caps on them.
They're capable of accommodating ballistic missiles.
And Putin has said three years ago that when the U.S. gets the hypersonic missiles, They will hit Russia.
They will hit Moscow and some of the IBM sites in five minutes.
So that's already there.
That threat is already there.
And then in 2026, the U.S. and Germany, I don't know if Germany agreed to this, but they've agreed to reinstate long-range missiles.
That's the text of this agreement between Germany and the US.
Long range missiles in Germany starting in 2026.
Well, that's not just medium range.
That's not just short range.
That's worse than the Pershing 2s that they had back there in the 80s and 90s.
So what we're dealing with here is something that's been gradually accelerating.
All I'm saying is that, yeah, the Russians are being real strong on their rhetoric.
What Lavrov said today, no more negotiations for sure.
We were prepared to negotiate.
No more ever, okay?
So that's where it sits here.
And I think that there is a danger of misinterpreting what the Russians are doing, which I see as kind of a warning with respect to the Europeans, mostly, who would bear the brunt of all this.
Larry, there are two.
American aircraft carriers in the eastern Mediterranean, ostensibly there to provide either a show of support or real support for Israel.
Can these aircraft carriers dispatch offensive armaments that can reach Moscow?
No.
Well, can they reach Russia?
That's what submarines are for.
No, that aircraft's not operationally capable without air refueling, which would make them very vulnerable to shoot down.
The reality is, for Russia, our aircraft carriers are useless.
They take up space in the ocean.
Does the Pentagon, in your opinion, perceive the danger of what you just characterized in your two answers ago?
Well, no.
I mean, no.
You're not seeing anybody stepping up to try to calm things down, cool things down, back off.
It's just the opposite.
Yeah, let's give the Ukrainians permission to start hitting deeper into Russia.
Yeah, let's do that.
That's what you're hearing.
Do we have subs in the Black Sea?
No.
Wow.
Wow.
So, I mean, subs would be in the Mediterranean.
But, you know, that's the other dimension here, what's going on with respect to Israel and, quote, containing Iran.
We're putting a naval force out there that's going to be exhausted.
I mean, the longer they stay there, all ready to fight, all tensed up, all ready to go, it's any minute now, it's coming, okay, tomorrow, next week.
You can't stay ready like that.
You know, this is like a bad version of a Viagra ad.
You know, after four hours, go see a doctor.
You are never at a loss for these, shall I say, unique analogies.
Sorry.
Let's segue into the Middle East.
You used an interesting word, exhausted.
The two of you, as well as McGregor, Ritter, and others, have described the IDF as exhausted.
It appears Prime Minister Netanyahu wants them to engage in a land war, killing civilians in the West Bank.
Will they meet much resistance?
Will Hezbollah get involved in a way that will stop them, Ray?
That is the question, Judge.
I wish I knew the answer.
Hezbollah, Hamas, the arc of resistance there, the people in The question is whether President Sisi in Egypt, whether the people in Saudi Arabia or even Jordan will feel they have to respond for once.
In defense of the Palestinians because of the pressure from the many thousands, millions, in some cases, of Palestinians that live in their countries.
So, yeah, it's a real dilemma.
And I think the key still exists.
The key is still whether Netanyahu can tell his armed forces with credibility that if they go after Hezbollah, Washington is in it with us.
If they can't say that, the military may well resist being sent into a futile battle, a quixotic attempt to save what's left to be saved from their campaigns against Hamas and Hezbollah.
May I add one more little thing here?
It's no little thing.
We haven't mentioned that Jacob Sullivan is still in Beijing at last.
Lecturing the Chinese on human rights.
Well, I don't think so.
No, I think what he's doing is saying, look, we may have to up the ante in Ukraine.
I know you have this cooperation agreement with Russia, but just let you know so that you don't...
I don't think he's going to get the purse space.
I asked my Chinese specialist friends, hey, do the Chinese have a...
And they said, no, they're much too polite.
But they do say absurd.
And what Wang Yi has been saying to Sullivan is absurd.
If you think that we're gonna let the Russians be wiped out in Ukraine, And I think Sullivan's going to come back now and you talk to Tony Blinken and say, my God, the Russians and the Chinese are together.
They're five years late in realizing that.
But if they realize that, then I think a two-front war, maybe they won't even be able to persuade our military.
Good chance.
A two-front war.
Larry, do you think, do we still have 2,000 Marines on Kinman Island taunting the mainland Chinese, supposedly there to defend Taiwan?
Another farce.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, the posture, at least, of what we call Indo-PACOM.
It used to be called U.S. PACOM, Pacific Command.
They've expanded it into West Asia.
What you're looking at here is the military is sending messages that they're going to be at war with China.
Now, I just have seen some of the news flashes coming across about what was said.
And the Chinese were very strong in portraying the United States as a belligerent power.
And they said that the worsening of relationships is all entirely the fault of Washington, not China.
Yeah, because Washington has reversed course on the commitments that were made by Richard Nixon 52 years ago with respect to a one-China policy.
So, you know, she was lecturing Sullivan, not the other way around.
Sullivan, they don't have enough lipstick to put on this pig to make it pretty.
You know, the one-china policy was not only President Nixon-Selven, But I guess Joe Biden didn't read that.
Gentlemen, I have to go.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for your time.
We're pretending it's Friday.
And of course, we're off on Monday.
I don't know what our schedules will be next week, but I would be ecstatic if you both can be on twice as usual, individually early in the week.
And the roundtable on Friday.
All the best.
Have a great holiday weekend.
Same to you.
Safe travels.
Thank you.
Thank you, my friends.
▲
Export Selection