All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 18, 2024 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
33:13
Alastair Crooke : The West Lusts for War.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Monday, November 18th, 2024.
Alistair Crook will be here with us in just a moment on the West's Lust for War.
But first this.
We're taught to work hard for 35 to 40 years.
Save your money, then live off your savings.
Unfortunately, there are too many threats undermining the value of our hard-earned dollars.
The Fed's massive money printing machine is shrinking your dollar's value.
Just the cost of groceries is absurd.
Let me be brutally honest.
I think the dollar is on its way to being extinct.
Not just here, but globally.
The BRICS nations, led by Russia and China, threaten to remove the dollar as the world's reserve currency.
Central banks have been shifting away from the dollar and into gold.
And if we go to central bank digital currency, that will not only destroy the dollar, but we will lose our freedom.
We will lose our privacy.
They can track anything we do.
You need to take care of yourself and your family.
So here's what you need to do.
Immerse yourself in knowledge and information.
The writing is on the wall.
Now is the time to consider shifting some of your dollars into gold and silver as your bedrock financial asset.
Call my friends at Lear Capital, the leader in precious metals, investing for over 27 years.
They help me diversify into gold and silver.
They can help you, too.
Call Lear today at 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620, or go to learjudgenap.com.
Alistair Crook, welcome here, my dear friend.
Thank you, as always, for your time and for your thoughts.
Over the weekend, from the rainforest in the Amazon area of Brazil, President Biden apparently decided to authorize the Ukrainian military to use American long-range missiles with about a 200-mile range to attack into Russia.
This is, of course, a dramatic change, something he said he would never do.
What's your take on this, Alistair?
Primarily, it's a morale raiser.
It's a morale raiser for Biden and the Democrats, and it's a morale raiser supposedly for the Ukrainians.
I remember back in Afghanistan when the Mujahideen were losing the war in Afghanistan.
That's why we introduced Stinger missiles.
It wasn't so much that they were very effective.
But they raised the morale of the Mujedin at a difficult time.
So I think it's partly a morale raiser, but it also reflects something much more important, because I think behind this and behind the pressure to go on in Ukraine is really also the fact that it's often overlooked, that the third greatest gas reserves in Europe Lie in the Donbas.
In Donbas and in Kharkov.
And also then other reserves are offshore in Crimea.
And a number of American companies had spent a lot of money putting in bids for these.
Potentially, this could supply the gas, instead of Russian gas, for Europe.
It was a geopolitical stroke, if you like.
So we had firms such as Exxon, Halliburton and Shell and others all signing contracts before the war.
With Ukraine for its fracking gas in Donbas and Kharkov, but offshore gas off Crimea.
And then you've got the other great resource of Ukraine, certainly sort of up to the Nipah, which is land.
Because this land, I mean, it's the breadbasket of Europe, and BlackRock own it.
They literally have a mortgage on all that farmland.
And, you know, we often talk, and I do, I'm guilty of it, of seeing sort of energy as the crucial flow.
Where energy goes is the sort of geopolitical underpinning.
But I think equally, you know, and we lose sight of the fact that increasingly now it's food, because we've sort of so much industrialized that we don't grow as much of our own food.
So, I mean, the big producers of food.
And that was one of the things that I think probably Biden was involved in in South America, because South America is going to be a supplier of food, not to China, just as they would hope that Ukraine would be supplying China with foodstuffs and Iran would be supplying China with oil and energy.
To, if you like, fuel the whole of that node of the bricks.
The future is really in that Central American, Central Asian corridor.
That is where the growth is going to come.
They are just on the brink of a huge growth.
And they need fuel.
And they need conduits, corridors, channels.
And Iran provides both of those, by the way.
And it's crucial.
That's why both Russia and China are investing in Iran's energy.
Russia doesn't need it.
China takes 95% of Iran's energy.
But the whole of this development, what used to be called the Belt and Road to Central Asia.
I mean, look at Siberia.
It's humming with economic activity.
I don't mean just mining and, if you like, oil.
It is the most vibrant economy in the world at the moment.
They need fuel for that.
And they need food for the people.
And so Iran is crucial to this as well as China.
I'd like to get back to the natural and probable consequences of President Biden's decision.
I mean, President Putin has made it very clear.
That if American weaponry or Western weaponry, weaponry from the EU, NATO, and the U.S. is fired at him, he understands that that would implicate the use of American intel and probably American contractors, and therefore America would be fair game for retaliating.
Is this not extremely risky on the part of Joe Biden, whether he wants to deliver a disaster into the lap of his successor or whether he wants to boost the morale of the Ukrainians?
Isn't this a dangerous risk that he's taking by allowing the Ukrainians to use these long-range weapons?
I think primarily also, and I think Donald Trump Jr. has tweeted to this effect that His view of it is that it's designed precisely to trap his father as he comes in.
Instead of being able to do a deal, he's going to have a much more complex situation to deal with.
And he adds, and of course there are the trillions of dollars at stake for people like Blackrock, Chevron and others.
True.
and the MIC, the Military Industrial Complex.
So I think, yes, it's intended as the sort of You know, seen from where I am, far from the United States, it seems to me that the United States is entering into two distinct wars.
One war.
Which is going to be ugly, is the war against what you call the swamp, the interagency, the deep state, whatever you want to call it.
But that's going to be one war.
And it's already pushing back, pushing back by disruptive notices, suggestions that Trump has already been talking to Putin and he's about to give away Ukraine to Russia, etc., etc.
So we've seen all this sort of disruption.
That's one war.
The second war is just as big in the United States, in my sort of rather distant view, which is to put an end to this endless government expenditure and government job creation and jobs that don't produce but are part of a great big apparatus of control and, if you like, the big technocracy, the big bureaucracy.
And so both of those are crucial to him.
I don't think, therefore, I mean, these are the ones, I mean, in some respects, it's revolution.
The United States is planning a sort of economic revolution and a structural revolution.
And for that, he doesn't need wars in Ukraine.
In fact, they're a distraction.
They're going to be disruptive.
They're going to be problematic.
Same, if you like, in the Middle East.
So I think that, you know, this is, Partly, if you like, the blue establishment, the deep state, pushing back.
Presumably, this came primarily from the intelligence services, and the Pentagon probably was not in favor of this at all.
In practical terms, I would just say, they have been using attack cams, thousands of them during this period, into Russia.
They've been using long distance drones into striking, as you've seen, Moscow at times.
And they've used storm shadows and scalp missiles.
I mean, there's been no evidence that actually North Korean troops are in Kursk.
We don't know exactly what the limitations are.
So you're absolutely right in what you said.
The actual practical change that They've managed this before, the attack camps.
It is the principle.
The principle is that the US is authorizing attacks into pre-2014 Russia.
And it is using NATO facilities, this intelligence surveillance reconnaissance, Of these overhead planes, stuff full of electronics, of all of the satellites and all of these facilities, without which striking deeper into Russia is not possible.
They can strike short-term using drones for targeting, but deep strikes have to have the support of NATO to make them effective.
If the purpose of this war, or if the purpose of this decision is to frustrate Trump or to enhance the morale of the doomed-to-lose Ukrainian troops, that is not a moral use of this equipment.
Biden's handlers must know that Ukraine is on its last leg.
The Wall Street Journal reports that they have $7 billion remaining in the congressional authorization.
He plans to try and spend all of it in the next 60 days.
To what moral end?
I would argue there is no moral end in sight to the expenditure of that kind of cash and the risk to American personnel in Ukraine, in Europe, and maybe even the American mainland.
That is grave in light of some of the things that President Putin has said.
You shoot at us and you are a nuclear power.
We can use any weapons we have to shoot back at you.
That's pretty much what he said, Alistair.
There's absolutely no moral basis to it.
There is no empathy for human life in that sort of decision.
It is completely cold.
Calculating.
Essentially, they admit now that Ukraine is just a proxy war, that the US can engage in it.
It's now in the mainstream.
Engaged in this to weaken Russia.
Primarily, it was to weaken Russia.
And so what the US wants is a protectorate.
But at the end of the day, it turns out NATO and the US They cannot protect their protectorate, and they're going to give up on it, but not before keeping it going long enough to embarrass Trump or to make it difficult for him.
It's a pure cynical form of amorality.
There's nothing I can say except that it's probably...
I mean, if it were in any other context, we would consider this sort of a criminal sense of narcissism.
Here's President Putin two months ago on September 12 warning about this very outcome.
It is not about allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not.
It is about making a decision about whether NATO countries are directly involved in the military conflict or not.
If the decision is made, it will mean nothing less than the direct participation of NATO countries, the United States and European countries in the war in Ukraine.
This is their direct participation and this, of course, significantly changes the very essence, the very nature of the conflict.
This will mean that NATO countries, the United States and European countries are fighting Russia.
And if this is so, Bearing in mind the change in the very essence of this conflict, we will make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be created for us.
This is so, bearing in mind the change in the very essence, essence of the conflict, because now the U.S. is fighting us directly, I'm paraphrasing, we will make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be created for us.
Don't Biden's handlers view this?
As a dangerous escalation in light of what President Putin has warned about two months ago?
I think it's entirely cynical.
As I say, entirely cynical.
It is, you know, one-upmanship on Trump.
It is one-upmanship.
The interests of the United States?
No, not at all.
Interests of BlackRock, of Chevron, wanting to keep the prospect open.
Of those that signed the great reconstruction plans, who were expecting to make billions from the reconstruction of Ukraine when Russia was defeated, of course it's a big blow to them.
And maybe they still hope for some change, something that will alter it.
But of course it won't.
Though I would say that I do think Putin has other options.
I mean, one of the things that is an option, of course, we've already seen the, if you like, the scale of weapons that have been used in Yemen against naval forces.
I mean, which have caused one of the Pentagon officials to say, I've never seen anything like it.
I was amazed by what they have.
How did they do it?
Well, we know how they did it.
And then the other thing is, of course, is that all of this is facilitated by, if you like, the RQ-4 piloted, crewed aircraft over the Black Sea, sometimes in international waters, sometimes less so, and also the satellites.
Now, at the moment, Russia doesn't interfere with them.
They doesn't block Starlink, even.
I mean, there are things that could be done.
And as you saw over yesterday, over last night, there was a massive attack on the distribution of electricity.
Not the generators, but the distribution of electricity across all Ukrainian cities.
It's on the brink of going down.
So, I mean, you know, there are...
He's in the driving seat.
He will determine the outcome of what happens in Ukraine.
He knows that.
He's winning.
He's in the driving seat.
And what is the West going to do?
Import a few F-16s from South Korea and try and fly them.
They'll be shot down immediately.
I mean, there's nothing really left in the quiver.
So I think he knows that this is a bluff.
He knows that it was a deliberate provocation by authorizing an attack into pre-2014 Mother Russia, deeply Of course he understands that's a change.
But I don't think he's going to get panicked by it.
He's a very calm, careful person.
And I think he will manage it quite well.
As I say, it's not the first time.
We've had attack camps going into Russia before.
Before we transition over to the latest in Israel, one last question on this.
Do you think Russian troops or drones or equipment will be shooting at Americans, the Americans who are operating and maintaining and repairing all this equipment that's in Ukraine?
Well, there's been a bit of that.
You remember the French, a number of French troops were attacked, and I think American troops were attacked, NATO troops really at the outset of this war, right at that sort of great center.
A military center just over the border from Poland some time ago.
I think, you know, probably it will be.
They know where these centers are.
Supposedly, the NATO center is at Czasafia in the Donbass, where they have some bunker and the NATO troops are there.
Yes, it's another option.
You know, I think he has other ones that he can bring into play.
And what we don't know is quite how much their calculation, because we see a number of senior Ukrainians saying, you know, as things are standing, because the acceleration, we can see that the Russians have increased their troops right across the red line, the contact line.
And enormously, it looks as if there is a real acceleration taking place.
And given what's happening in the US and ever, the troops don't have the morale.
They don't have the willingness to go on with this war.
Who wants to be the last to die in the pointless war?
They don't.
So many of them are giving up.
Some of them are retreating.
So there could be a collapse.
We don't know.
I mean, I'm sure Putin has.
A pretty good idea, and that is part of his calculus that he's looking at.
Haaretz, the Israeli daily newspaper, is saying that Prime Minister Netanyahu is so elated with President Trump's choices for his national security team, that's Mike Walls, Congressman Walls, to be the national security advisor, My former colleague at Fox News, Pete Hegseth, to be the Secretary of Defense.
Senator Marco Rubio to be the Secretary of State.
My other former colleague from Fox, Mike Huckabee, to be the U.S. Ambassador to Israel.
That it's almost a dream team.
It's almost as if Netanyahu has chosen these people for Trump.
Well, you know, here again, I'm distant and you're much closer.
But as I tried to indicate a little earlier, I think, you know, Trump's main focus, the most vital thing for him is to get the United States straight, to straighten its economy and to straighten out, if you like, and get rid of the swamp and clean the swamp.
He paid a price.
There was a price for that, and the price he chose to pay was to give the lobby whatever they wanted.
They gave them the full whack, complete support for Israel, which makes it perhaps easier for him to get some of his nominations through, makes it easier for him to sort of move on the domestic front with less pushback, because they have They have been given what they wanted.
But what you said just earlier about Netanyahu, that's quite true.
But it's much more than that.
I mean, the whole of Israel is a gog.
I mean, they already assume, taking for granted completely, that annexation of the West Bank and Gaza is a dumb deal, that it's already been agreed.
They've heard that from the US.
Nomination for envoy, that it's on the table, annexation.
The Palestinian state is finished, off the table.
And there is huge enthusiasm.
I mean, really a sort of a mass psychosis in Israel, wanting war with Iran, wanting to finish off Hezbollah, finish off the resistance in Iraq.
I mean, they are agog for this.
And they take it for granted.
I mean, whether they're right or whether not, but they assume that Trump will do this and that Trump will be brought into a war with Iran because they're caught up in this sort of psychosis.
Excitement and pleasure at what they see as a complete, you know, the dream team for annexation and for finishing the Palestinian project.
Before we finish, Alistair, is Prime Minister Netanyahu in political and legal trouble of a gravity that it could threaten his premiership.
Israeli intelligence caught a Netanyahu aide.
Leaking top-secret documents, a Jerusalem court has just confirmed.
The aid has been indicted.
Bail has been denied.
Now, this is not just some secretary in his office.
This is his principal spokesperson and someone in his inner circle.
Add to that, the Israeli courts have ordered Prime Minister Netanyahu to testify against himself in his own criminal case, which we all thought was in abeyance, but which apparently...
Do these events mean anything?
Yes.
There's a huge accumulation.
The ones you've just listed, but they go beyond that.
The attorney general has instructed him that he should sack Ben Gavir for illegal acts in connection with the police, which would bring down the government, most likely.
He has been told by the Attorney General that he has got no reason not to start the inquiry into what happened on the 7th of October.
A grain, again, a very dangerous prospect for Netanyahu.
There is a basic tension between the fact High casualties.
So he needs a way out.
And this is why I think it's important what's happening, because the timeline is different.
For Trump, it is the 20th of January, 21st of January, the inauguration.
But for Netanyahu, it is the first weeks of December when he will be called to his criminal trial.
He needs something, distraction.
He needs a war before that.
And Iran is the obvious one.
Even if Israel is not able to make a success of it, that's even more reason for thought that That will pull in that great tale of Israel-firsters in the United States into supporting Israel even more.
But what I don't know, and what I think is the big unanswered question, which I wrote about this week, was the question is, does Trump know?
Does he understand how changed?
How the innovations, military innovations in Iran have actually are game changers.
I mean, it is a completely different game now with drones and missile warfare against the old classic aircrafts bombing warfare.
And it's changed completely.
and the new use of drones to overwhelm air defenses changes the whole pattern, the game.
Now, you know, I think many in that sort of what you call the interagency group need a war.
They want an easy war to re-establish their strengths and their bona fides and America's predominance militarily and politically in the world.
And so Iran seems to them an easy war.
And it's anything but.
But does Trump know that?
Had it really explained to him that actually it could not only change the whole of the Middle East, but it could disrupt his whole main projects, which are the projects in America, his economic project.
It could change the whole economic paradigm very easily with a war on Iran and the consequences of it.
It could change his whole position versus Islam.
So I don't know if this is really important.
It's very important because I don't think there was a really fascinating explanation given by the deputy, the head of military intelligence in Israel, who's just left his post.
And he was saying: Look, what happened on the 7th of October, I mean, we completely got it wrong because we absolutely operated under the conviction Israel is strong, Hamas is weak.
They know that.
So there's no rational way that they could attack us or would attack us because they know we are strong and we know they are weak.
And this conviction, he said, He held so firmly that even when they got information intelligence coming in saying it wasn't like that, they dismissed it because they said, look, it's ridiculous.
We know that Hamas is deterred and it can't happen.
And he said to them, even after the 7th of October, some of his staff wouldn't give up that conviction that it was impossible for Hamas to come and strike.
Impossible for Hamas.
They just wouldn't accept it.
He said at the end of it, he says, it's a cultural thing.
They can't cope with it.
We are strong and they're weak.
Now, isn't that just the danger in the United States in respect to Iran?
Yes.
Just the same, culturally.
We are the United States.
Of course, we can finish off Iran and destroy its nuclear program easily.
And even when the evidence comes in that that isn't, that came in when the last Iranian strike on Israel that showed that wasn't the case, you know, just as General Rums said in that quote I just gave you, he said his people couldn't accept it.
They wouldn't, culturally, they couldn't accept that evidence.
And even after the disaster on the 7th of October, he said that some of them still, it upset, toned completely all of their sort of intelligence, certainties, upended it all.
They still could not accept that this was the case.
And he says, so changing the personality won't change it.
You have to change the culture.
And that's very difficult.
And that's what I believe Trump is trying to do.
And that's why he appointed someone like Tulsi Gabbard to change culture.
But it's not easy, as this general pointed out.
You know, they firmly start in a culture, we're strong, they're weak.
So that's it.
Thank you for another brilliant and gifted analysis, Alistair.
Very, very much appreciated.
I love the way you chide in the hubris of the Israelis to the hubris of the Americans, both very obvious and both very dangerous.
Thank you, my dear friend.
We'll see you again next week.
All the best.
Thank you.
My pleasure.
Thank you.
Of course.
We have a fascinating day coming up.
Of course, we just finished with Alistair, but at 9.30 this morning, Pepe Escobar.
At 10 o 'clock this morning, Ray McGovern.
At 11 o 'clock this morning, Larry Johnson.
At 4 this afternoon, Scott Ritter.
And at 7 tonight, I'm going to moderate a debate between our friend Max Blumenthal and a neocon.
You don't want to miss that.
▲
Export Selection