All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 17, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
25:05
Alastair Crooke : Trump and Putin's World Now
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Monday, February 17th, 2025.
Alistair Crook will be with us in just a moment on It's Trump's and Putin's World Now, but first this.
Markets are at an all-time high.
Euphoria has set in.
The economy seems unstoppable, but...
The last administration has buried us so deep in debt and deficits, it's going to take a lot of digging to get us out of this hole.
Are you prepared?
Lear Capital specializes in helping people like me and you grow and protect our wealth with gold.
Did you know that during Trump's last presidency, gold rose 54% to a record high?
If that happens again, that puts gold at $4,200 an ounce.
In his next term.
Don't wait.
Do what I did.
Call Lear at 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com for your free gold ownership kit and special report, $4,200 gold ahead.
When you call, ask how you can also get up to $15,000 in bonus gold with a qualifying purchase.
Call 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com and tell them the Alistair, good day to you, my friend, and welcome here.
Thank you for the opportunity to chat with you.
Before we get to big picture, it's Trump's and Putin's world now.
If I may, a couple of pinpoint questions.
If President Trump truly wants peace in Ukraine, why do you think he is continuing to send arms to Kyiv.
Is this a form of leverage with the Russians?
No, I don't think so.
I think it is really more a question of covering his back with those in both in Europe and in the United States are in meltdown at the idea even of having talks with Russia.
And so I think he wants to sort of balance it out and to have some sort of show that he's not, you know, there was a great deal of language used at the Munich conference about he was giving away,
I mean, concessions to Russia before the talks even started.
And it's nonsense because what he said was just realism.
He said that there would be no NATO and there would be neutral Ukraine and that Russia was going to take some territory.
And, you know, this is not giving away concessions because this is just a statement of the real.
This is what it is.
And I know from my recent trip to Moscow, I mean, if they'd insisted on those before as a sort of agenda for the...
The Russians have said, I'm very sorry, but what is there to talk about?
Nothing. Why did Secretary of Defense Hegseth, or why do you believe Secretary of Defense Hegseth walked back his statements, no U.S. troops in Ukraine,
no Ukraine in NATO, within 48 hours of having articulated them?
Well, I'm not sure.
Maybe there's a slight confusion here.
I think the complaint was at Vance, that Vance had made these suggestions, and they were immediately picked up in Moscow that there may be military action.
And Vance has made it very clear that, I think it was in the Wall Street Journal, and he said, you know, this was a complete travesty of what he said.
He never said that.
So I'm not quite sure where it came from, but I think it was in part that Vance had said something, and it was picked up in the Wall Street Journal and then replayed.
He wasn't even talking about the Russian negotiations of Munich.
He was talking about Europe and the enemy within, in Europe, rather than talking about Russia at the time.
But the Wall Street Journal, I think, replayed this.
I don't know what their motive was, but it certainly was a sort of very much a distortion of what Vance had been saying.
Well, the Wall Street Journal reported and then others picked up that Vance said the U.S. would not rule out American military force in Ukraine, which is rather startling.
Even Joe Biden didn't.
And Tony Blinken didn't make such offerings.
No, I mean, you know, it's clearly an attempt to put a spanner in the works in Munich because when it came to it in Munich,
it said absolutely no Americans will be put at risk in Ukraine.
None. No Americans will be put at risk.
And furthermore, any European forces there will not have Article 5 NATO coverage.
So he went out of his way to make clear there would be no American forces at all engaged in Ukraine.
And then he went further.
I think this was Vance rather than Hegset, but they said, listen, you know, we have forces in Europe.
I mean, they're there now.
But, you know, I think you Europeans should not expect them to remain, you know, in the longer term.
If you look sort of five or ten years, you know, will they still be there?
You know, it was a very clear point he was making.
You know, America's interest, or at least this administration's interest, has turned to China.
And that's where we're putting our assets and our resources.
So don't even count on having our forces there.
But it was absolutely made plain at Munich.
No American boots on the ground in Ukraine, either under NATO, which was outlawed in their terms.
There would be no NATO involvement.
If the Europeans wanted to do it, it was at their own risk.
Right. Here's the core of what the vice president said.
About Europe's threats from within.
It's very brief.
Cut number two.
The threat that I worry the most about vis-a-vis Europe is not Russia, it's not China, it's not any other external actor.
And what I worry about is the threat from within.
The retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values.
Why did that rankle European leaders so much, Alistair?
That very phrase alone.
They've been going around like headless chickens ever since that was stated, because it strikes at the very heart of what they have been doing, which is to keep control of the narrative,
keep control.
You know, I've been saying it for some time that actually...
Europe is suffering more from this culture of censorship and of mandatory alignment than even the United States was at this time.
And he threatens it.
He threatened it directly.
And why they are so upset about it is because, you know, the elites are one thing.
But most Europeans have been feeling this.
They felt it, particularly during the COVID, that you said the wrong thing and you could lose your job.
And it was worse.
In other parts in the UK, you could end up going to prison if you said something that was considered or defined as hurtful or something like this.
And in Germany, and this is why it's caused such a storm after Munich.
It is because of Germany has been saying, well, we can't deal with, you know, there's a firewall.
We can't deal with the alternative for Deutschland, AFD, of Alice Weidel at all because she's outside the firewall.
And he said very clearly, you know, you're sounding more like the Soviet Union than Europe.
What's happened to you?
You need to look inside and you need to...
Work out what's happened.
And indeed, after Munich, Mertz, the head of the CDU, the biggest party as it stands in Germany, had a live interview with Alice Weidel, the head of the Alternative Party, and said,
under no circumstances are we going to allow you to take part.
I mean, we've heard all these warnings before and threats.
But Alternative has a huge popular support.
You know, this is realism.
Again, you know, this is just acknowledging what is real and there.
Alternative reflects a huge segment of German opinion.
It may be regarded as not in alignment with Germany's own position, which is pro-Ukraine.
And this is what excites us.
Let's be frank about it.
What's wrong with this is because they've worked so hard to construct.
Because, you know, I used to work for the European Union when Javier Solano was the high representative of the European Union, and I was part of his staff.
There were 12 member states then, and the chance of getting a single coherent foreign policy.
From Europe, even then, was almost impossible.
Now there are 30-plus member states.
It's just not possible.
So the only thing that they could do was to try and use Ukraine as a means to centralize control in von der Leyen and the Commission, and take it away from the member states, and to insist that Ukraine,
support for Ukraine, support for Zelensky, It's become a sort of cult, which was designed, if you like, to provide a show of unity that was wholly false, because there isn't that unity in Europe,
nor is there likely to be that sort of unity.
And so what he blew up with some of his statements, was he blew up this whole idea that Europe could become a sort of liberal empire, an actor.
Power actor with a seat at the table with Russia and America.
It doesn't have the ability to speak with a single voice.
It is a collection of sovereign nation states with their own legacies, with their own views, and trying to enforce it by pushing the Ukrainian issue as binding the glue to hold the whole thing together.
It's just come undone.
What do the Americans gain by having the Vice President of the United States lecture the Europeans on the values of democracy?
Oh, enormous.
In the same way, in exactly the same way that Trump has sort of loosened up the politics of the United States through a sort of Great blast of presidential orders and statements and declarations.
I mean, it's loosened up politics.
Whether it's a good thing or not is for Americans to decide.
But, you know, Europe was stuck in a Cold War paradigm, and it's been in a Cold War paradigm for a long time.
And America is in the process of changing, changing and presenting a new face to the world.
And so it really wants, if Europe is going to be in any way a partner in the future, Europe needs to reflect some of the change that is taking place in the United States.
Otherwise, they become antagonists.
And we will find Europe there.
And this is still possible.
Actually trying to sabotage.
What Trump is doing in terms of reaching some sort of grand bargain with Mr. Putin.
They will end up by undermining it, of trying to continue with something, with, you know, the unrealistic, because what have they got to offer?
It is only keep doing the things that have not worked so far.
Keep continuing to pump a few weapons in because they don't have a...
Anything that is a game changer, putting in money into Ukraine, killing more Ukrainian young men and some Russians.
I mean, what is the point of that?
That's really all Europe has to offer.
And so I think it was a calculated move by the vice president to say these things because it's felt.
You know, the elites go nuts when this is said.
I mean, they did go nuts.
But for most Europeans, they will be clapping him and saying, thank God.
You know, I mean, Orban tries to say it, but, you know, it was someone speaking on behalf of the vice president of the United States of America that said, you're not democratic.
You suppress free speech.
This is not a good idea.
You are actually the enemy.
Not Russia.
You are the enemy within the West.
And they found that, they said they found that just unacceptable to them and went off into a sort of phase of extreme petulance.
I think that petulance will be manifested in Paris this morning where they're getting together to pound the table.
Is it your understanding that President Trump and President Putin will meet alone, by alone I don't mean without their aides and ministers, but without the head of another country there,
mainly without President Zelensky, in order to attempt to resolve initially Ukraine and secondarily big picture relationships?
That's my understanding.
Sorry, that's my understanding.
The first phase, which is going to happen quite shortly, is the key officials from Russia.
And Petrushchev was one, Lavrov another, and possibly the head of the foreign intelligence, will meet with the three American officials, including Witkoff, by the way.
We'll meet together with them in Saudi Arabia to prepare the ground for a one-to-one meeting between Trump and Putin to discuss the big picture.
Now, after that, they say that possibly then, you know, somehow, you know, Zelensky might be involved after that single meeting later on.
But, you know, first of all, the Russians are not keen on talking to Zelensky under any circumstances because his mandate has expired and they view him as having no legal standing to commit Ukraine to anything and that it's a mistake to do a deal or to even have him in the process because he has no mandate and he has no legal standing.
And for the Russians, I can tell you, because I've heard this at great length from them, I mean, they just regard, you know, they regard Europe as completely agreement-incapable, and therefore there's no point at having them in the room.
One of the reasons I ask this, Alistair, is because of an unusual statement made yesterday by General Kellogg.
I actually thought he had been replaced by Mr. Witkoff.
As the emissary for Ukraine and Russia, but he's still out there.
He's still speaking.
He purports to speak on behalf of the president.
Here he is yesterday, and the startling thing about four or five lines in is, of course the Ukrainians are going to be at the table, but there's a lot of other verbiage here.
Take a listen.
Can you assure this audience that Ukrainians will be at the table and Europeans will be at the table?
Oh, you just changed the whole dynamic.
The answer to that last question, just as you framed it, the answer is no.
The answer to the earlier part of that question is yes, of course the Ukrainians are going to be at the table.
So the Europeans who have provided as much or more support to the Americans in this process, you don't think should be at the table directly.
You think it should be two protagonists.
I said I'm a school of realism.
I think that's not going to happen.
But our philosophy is not...
I don't know if he knows what he's talking about, Alastair.
He doesn't.
He doesn't.
Know what he's talking about.
He's out of it.
His statements, earlier statements about Russia were understood to be damaging to Trump's objectives rather than helpful to it with the threats that he made about towards Russia when Trump was trying to sort of prepare the ground for a one-to-one meeting in due course.
So the team that will be going there.
As I understand it, will be Vance, Rubio and Witkoff.
But not Kellogg.
He's out.
And I don't think the Russians would accept him because they view him as not capable of having moved on from the Cold War sort of syndrome.
So I think he's out of it.
And it'll be a different team there.
And as I say, this is the preparatory team only going to Saudi Arabia, so they don't need Ukrainians at it.
It would only be, if you like, disruptive, because they'd want...
I gather that Zelensky is even thinking that he's just going to turn up in Saudi Arabia to sort of force his presence there.
Well, he's fine if he wants to do that, but all he'll do is just anger.
The very people that he needs on his side.
So, I mean, I don't think it'll happen.
And then it will be one-to-one, as you said, one-to-one, but of course there will be people in the backdrop.
And then later there may be.
But as I say, from the Russian perspective...
And I would think from the Trump administration perspective, they keep arguing, you know, but what has, you know, what indeed has Europe to contribute to this discussion?
All they continue is that the EU high representative for security policy says, you know, no, you know, the war must go on.
We must put more weapons in.
We must get more leverage over Russia.
We must continue the war.
And Zelensky must be the decider.
And Europe must be part of this discussion.
Okay, so how many people do you want in this discussion?
How big is the table going to be?
Tell me what the Russians are likely to think of this, President.
We need the support of Europe.
And this common plan, we have to discuss with Russians.
And we will.
At the table, it's very important to hear America, Europe, Ukraine, and Russia.
Yes. Can you accept any peace deal that is cut without Ukraine?
No. That was from Meet the Press.
He's not going to have much of a choice, is he?
He's going to be irrelevant to it.
He is already irrelevant to the agreement.
The agreement will be in principle between the United States and Russia.
And it has to be because it is to be not about Ukraine.
Ultimately, it is about the big picture.
It is about the security of Europe and the region.
Spheres of influence between the big states, if you like, China, Russia, and the United States.
And as Putin said, it can involve questions of oil, energy.
It can involve nuclear issues.
It could involve missile questions, armaments.
And Trump responded to that in a very positive way by saying, Well, you know, maybe, you know, between Russia, China and ourselves, we can halve the defense spending.
Well, you know, they're not going to have Zelensky in that discussion.
I mean, it's quite pointless.
And, you know, he will do what he's told.
Alistair, thank you very much for your time.
Deeply appreciated, my friend.
It's a holiday here today in America, but you're working, we're working.
And the audience is watching.
Thank you, my dear friend.
We'll see you next week.
All the best.
Have a good holiday, anyway.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And even though it is a holiday, coming up soon at 10 o'clock, Ray McGovern at 11.30, Larry Johnson at 2 o'clock this afternoon on a rather startling statement made by President Trump.
On nuclear weapons, Scott Ritter, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom.
▲
Export Selection