All Episodes
Previous Next
June 6, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
25:27
INTEL Roundtable w/ Johnson & McGovern - Weekly Wrap 6-June
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Friday, June 6th, 2025.
Pardon me.
It's the end of the day, the end of the week, our favorite time of the week with our favorite presentation, the Intelligence Community Roundtable with my two dear friends and collaborators, Ray McGovern and Larry Johnson.
Gentlemen, thank you very much, as always, for the double duty.
Ray, to you first.
Was the attack by Russian drones, excuse me, by Ukrainian drones on Russian military aircraft and civilians a pinprick and a PR stunt, as Alistair Crook and Colonel McGregor claim, or was it a seriously destabilizing event, as Professor Sachs has argued?
The first.
The key, Judge, is how the Russians react.
Now, on the 4th, that's Wednesday, Putin made a lengthy statement, curious that he didn't even mention the attacks on the air bases.
Ushakov gave a lengthy statement as a result of the summit by telephone, and curiously enough, So, you know, there was a phrase used by presidential spokesman Dmitry Teskov about a week ago.
He talked about emotional overload.
I'm afraid we're seeing a lot of emotional overload because of the...
But the key is, and if you watch Russian statements, they're distinguishing between the blowing up of the bridges, which they say is a terrorist attack, that how can you negotiate with terrorists, and the pinpricks that they don't even mention.
So the Trian stuff, I applaud my colleagues for looking really closely at nuclear doctrine on the Russian part.
But it doesn't matter because the Russians are ignoring it.
They may say something privately to U.S. representatives, but they're not making, well, let's put it this way, they're not making a federal case out of it.
And for Jeffrey Sachs and many others to make such a case, I really disagree with that.
And it's the first time I find myself in disagreement with such a bright guy as Jeffrey and many of the other analysts that you've had on your program.
Larry, before you respond, this is brief, but it's the Putin statement to which Ray just referred.
Chris, cut number one.
It was a deliberate strike, and it only confirms our suspicions that the illegitimate regime in Kiev that came to power through a coup is now being reborn as a terrorist organization, and its sponsors become supporters of terrorism.
At the same time, they're asking for a ceasefire.
They're asking for top-level meetings.
But how can we organize such meetings when something like this is happening?
What is there to talk about?
How can we negotiate with those who are resorting to terrorism?
And why should we reward them with a cessation and hostilities, allowing them to receive additional weapons to continue their mobilization and to prepare for more terrorist attacks like those in the Bryansk and Korsk region?
What is the significance of the use of the words terrorist terrorism and terror attack?
Well, it marks a shift in the Russian approach to this war now from a special military operation to now a counterterrorism operation, which means more extensive military attacks and greater power of the government to conduct surveillance and to take steps to protect the military.
I disagree with Ray that the Russians were all You know, upset.
You know, the issue was the attack of the bridges.
We've had previous terrorist attacks that Russia never reacted to in this way.
We had the attack on the Kerch Bridge in October of 22. We had the Crocus City Hall attack.
Killed 145 people.
I mean, you compare the Crocus City Hall attack.
To the attacks on the bridges in Bryansk and Kursk, those are nothing burgers.
You killed seven people.
You can't tell me that killing seven people, now all of a sudden Russia's going, oh my God.
I think there's another reason why Putin and others didn't necessarily mention it in these public speeches.
That is because it was a great embarrassment for Russia.
But what we do know, and I've heard from other friends in Moscow.
And in St. Petersburg, as well as what Pepe has witnessed personally since he's been there.
It was the attack on the airfields that has enraged the Russian people.
And if you watched and listened to Putin the other day, he was, I would describe it as controlled fury.
His body language and his voice, the tenor of his voice, was as angry as we've ever seen him.
Over the course of the last three years.
So what this shift to a counterterrorism operation now means that this war is going to be entering a new phase.
And it's going to be a devastating phase for Ukraine because Russia is now, up to this point, they've limited themselves on some targets, including Zelensky.
Right.
And I think particularly now that it's a counterterrorism operation, that Zelensky is definitely on the list of possible targets.
Is this a pinprick slash PR event, or is it destabilizing, Larry?
Where are you on this Colonel McGregor-Allister Crook versus Jeffrey Sachs analysis?
Well, it's a pinprick from the standpoint.
That it didn't accomplish much, despite the Ukrainian claims that, oh, we wiped out 41 aircraft.
No, it didn't.
They got about seven maximum, and at least three of those were decommissioned aircraft.
It didn't have engines under the wing.
So, yeah, from a tactical standpoint, it was a pinprick.
But from this...
And whether it's true or not, the Russian leadership perceives this as this was Western-supported, directed, and encouraged.
And what they've been trying to sort out was, was it the United States?
Was it Great Britain?
But they know in their own, they believe, again, whether it's true or not, they believe that this couldn't have been done by the Ukrainians on their own.
Ray, does Russian intel know the nature and extent of the involvement of MI6 and CIA in these attacks?
Well, they're busy finding out.
During that long press conference with Putin himself, the inspector that reports directly to Putin pointed out that a lot of the materials used were of foreign origin.
They're looking into it, and MI6's fingerprints are all over this.
I disagree with many of my colleagues on anything that has been said about U.S. involvement or CIA involvement.
I do think that the Russians want to believe that and do believe it.
But I also see a disinformation campaign, for example, this morning in the New York Times.
Okay?
Now, pay attention because there's a distinction here between blowing up bridges and attacking strategic bomber installations.
Okay.
Today, this morning, says the New York Times, the Russians launched something.
It was one of the largest barrages of missiles, blah, blah.
It killed four people, mind you.
Damaged buildings.
And Moscow suggested that this was retaliation for the audacious assault on Russian strategic bombers.
That's not the case.
Russia did not suggest that.
Russia said this is a retaliation for the terrorist attacks on the bridges on the 31st of May, the 1st of June, right before the negotiations were to start.
I mean, it's very clear.
I mean, seldom do you get so clearly a sequence here where they wanted to sabotage the negotiations, okay, or they wanted to provoke.
Putin into overreacting.
He's not an overreactor.
What happens, Ray, if Russian intel reports to Putin that the American CIA plan plotted this and knew it all along?
He will call Mr. Trump and say, God, we have the evidence on these guys.
Do you need it?
Because I can give it to you.
And they'll proceed accordingly.
Look, the stakes here are really high, but Trump and Putin have agreed.
They want a more decent relationship.
Ukraine, I hate to tell you, is subordinate to all that.
They're going to work this out.
And the Russians not making a federal case about this triad thing, you know, Russian doctrine.
Well, maybe they're doing it in private.
But, you know, you would expect, in my experience at least, them to say, oh, wait, this ratchets this thing up.
Instead, the only people saying that are the New York Times and some of the people, some of the commentators.
Larry mentions Pepe Escobar and the others.
Well, I too am in contact with Jeff Roberts, for example, a Russian historian out of a British-Russian, Ian Proud, who is a former British diplomat.
They agree with my case that this is, yeah, very interesting, but the interesting part is, This is why four people, mind you, were killed in Kyiv this morning."
Larry, before you respond, here's Deputy Foreign Minister Rybakov two days ago, pretty much contradicting Ray, but because...
Hang on, you can comment on it.
It may not be the same clip that you're thinking of.
No, it's the same one.
Hang on, Ray.
Cut number five.
We demand that both London and Washington react in a manner that will stop this cycle of escalation.
So how will Russia respond?
Are all options on the table or can you rule out a nuclear response?
This is a question to our military people and our Supreme Commander.
I am not in a position to speculate.
All options are on the table.
That's right.
Okay, Ray.
You find that conclusive?
That's what they always say.
I find it fascinating that he would say all options are on the table.
They say that all the time.
Yeah, having met and chatted with Sergei Rybkov, you know, he's much more congenial than he was right there.
You know, I understand Ray talking to Jeff Roberts and Ian Proud, but they're not in Russia.
The people that I know that are on the ground in Russia, including an American, he was an American military officer, West Point grad in 1974, graduated with David Petraeus, of all people.
But he's a Russian Orthodox Christian and been living there.
He's saying the same thing that Pepe said.
This has outraged.
It's not the attack on the trains, because again, I've got to emphasize, you've had multiple terrorist attacks.
Multiple terrorist attacks over the course of the last three years.
Again, Crocus City Hall, Ray, you're not suggesting that somehow blowing up the two trains...
I mean, come on.
No, no, Larry, what I'm suggesting is that it takes two to escalate, okay?
And the Russians aren't playing that game.
The fact that the Russians are being closed mouthed It wasn't an attack on the triad.
Yes, whether you like it or not, the fact of the matter is that's how the average Russian is perceiving this.
Doesn't matter.
Well, yeah, it does matter because it creates political pressure.
And the fact that Russia is not going out immediately reacting, it's that revenge is the best served cult.
They're taking their time and planning.
The strikes that took place in the last 24 hours, that's not the Russian response to the bridge attacks.
That's not the Russian response that's coming.
And in fact, we know it's going to be so severe that even Donald Trump, who a week ago was calling Vladimir Putin crazy, all of a sudden said, yeah, he was very strong in emphasizing that he has to respond.
And within an hour, All right.
The best way to bring two friends together who are disagreeing is to find a common enemy.
No, let me just comment.
All right.
Then I've got to read you this email about which you'll both roar when you're Learn who sent it to me.
Go ahead, Ray.
No, I just want to say it was after that comment that Dmitry Peskov, having consulted with his boss, Putin, how do I play this stuff?
And that's when Peskov says, look, this is a very complicated issue.
And, you know, there's such a thing as emotional overload.
And that's what we're seeing here.
Well, we're going to go to Istanbul and do real work here.
Don't worry about all these things that anyone says, including Trump.
Well, actually, you notice late yesterday, Peskov made a distinction.
They're not going to continue Istanbul.
They will continue.
They will continue.
He said they're going to continue at the delegation level technical talks such as prisoner POW exchanges, returning bodies, but they're not continuing the negotiation.
That's what they're doing now, Larry.
It's the same thing.
Here you go.
What a crazy world, Your Honor.
I loved the Ukraine drone attack on the Russian bombers.
It's a big deal on several levels.
Jack Devine.
Yay!
Glad you included that, Judge.
I've never agreed with Jack Devine in anything.
Larry?
Oh, well, typical Jack.
You know, out of touch with reality.
Wouldn't Trump have known?
Wouldn't Tulsi Gabbard have known?
Wouldn't John Ratcliffe have known?
Wouldn't somebody south of Ratcliffe have known of CIA involvement, Larry, and had a duty to reveal it?
Or are these guys waging a rogue foreign policy that results in human death?
Well, there are only three possibilities, and none of them are good.
That Ukraine planned this operation over an 18-month period, and the CIA didn't have a clue.
What?
You know, we're basically, you know, sleeping together over the last 18 months, and we don't know about that?
Possible.
Or one of the case officers that's on the ground there, one of the folks attached to Special Activities Division, they knew about it, but didn't say anything to their superiors up the chain of command.
Or, in fact, that we did know about it.
None of them are good looks.
I think what this has underscored, at least from the Russian standpoint, is Trump's not really in control.
And Trump is either being kept in the dark deliberately or choosing not to know.
But it's not the kind of thing, you know, Ray is correct that Russia is not seeking to blow up the relationship with the United States.
But at the same time, We're now going to see this military operation kick into a new gear that has not happened before.
And note that it's not at full war.
It's not complete mobilization and then just destruction of anything that's in the path of the Russians.
Because up to this point, they've been extremely careful to limit civilian casualties.
That's been sort of the hallmark of this special military operation.
Ray, who's in charge?
Look, we have to look at this from the Russian perspective.
Trump is the only president that they have that they can deal with.
Now, the interesting thing is not exactly how it worked out in the intelligence stuff, and I agree with Larry and Scott on that.
The interesting thing, the operative thing, is how the Russians are playing it now.
The same day that Putin issued his long statement, Ushakov gave the readout from the Putin-Trump conversation.
This is very official.
And what he said was this.
As for the attack on the military airfields, this topic was also touched upon.
Also touched upon.
And Donald Trump again confirmed that the Americans were not informed about this in advance.
Now, whether the Russians believe that or not, it doesn't matter.
That's the tack they're taking.
In other words, the overweening desire here to conduct a decent relationship with the US and Trump is their last white hope, right?
That's what's priority here.
They're playing everything in those terms, and they want us to believe that they believe that they take us in good faith.
What Trump is saying, and you shook off again.
Trump again confirmed that the Americans were not involved about this in advance.
Now, that's as authoritative as you can get.
That's the Russian readout of that conversation.
Ray, is Putin under pressure to bring the war to a swift conclusion?
Of course he is, and he's admitted that.
Now, six weeks ago, he gave a big speech, and he said, "Look, there are only people here that want me to go faster.
I mean, they complain that I'm not going fast enough in Ukraine." Now, that's reality, and this, of course, reinforces that wish, but Putin's in charge, okay?
He had an option to make a big deal about this.
He hasn't.
He's actually called this a terrorist act, which Larry is right.
This is a different kind of game, okay?
That's where they're going to retaliate.
They're not going to let people like Zelensky and MI6 sabotage what has the potential of a new detente between Russia and the United States.
Larry, what will Ukraine look like in a couple of weeks?
Well, it's not going to look much different than what it is now, although Sumi is likely to be under Russian control by then.
The Russian advance all along the line of contact has been pretty rapid and unprecedented, really, compared to previous years.
What I think the real difference is this last round of so-called talks, it was an exchange of documents.
The talks took place the two hours before when Medensky sat down with Umarov and basically gave him The final ultimatum, which was, you take this deal, or the next offer is going to be much more severe, and you're going to have the question of whether you'll survive as a country is going to be on the table.
And then they went in, they held the meeting, and they actually noticed that Umerov didn't even attend that meeting.
He took off immediately for Washington.
Is Zelensky a legitimate...
You mean for assassination or something like that?
Of course he is.
And they could do it right after this program.
But they choose not to do this kind of thing because they don't like assassinations, frankly.
The old days they did.
They used to call it wet affairs, okay?
Actually, with Putin himself having been subjected to such an assassination attempt, you know, you would think he'd fly off the handle, but he's not emotionally constructed that way.
He's cool, calm, and collected, and we ought to thank God for that, in my view.
On that, you agree, Larry?
Yeah.
What's changed, though, again, the terminology.
Under special military operation, Zelensky was not a target.
Now, under counterterrorism operation, Zelensky very well could be a target, because that has changed.
When you look, this term, counterterrorism operation, goes back to what Russia carried out against the Chechens from 1999 to 2009, 2010, in the Second Chechen War.
And assassinating leadership was on the table during that time.
And I think what Putin made clear in his speech the other day was he doesn't view Zelensky as legitimate at all.
And it's like, as he said, what's the point of negotiating with terrorists?
Gentlemen, thank you very much.
Great television when you disagree.
We love it, but we love each other.
Absolutely.
We disagree agreeably, as the late, great JFK once said.
Thank you very much.
Larry, I know you're traveling.
Safe travels.
I hope you can join us at the usual times while you're traveling.
Ray, God love you.
Thank you, gentlemen.
All the best.
Thanks a lot.
Thank you, Judge.
And, of course, on Monday, all of your usuals, Alistair Crook, Ray, Larry, and one or two on Monday afternoon.
Thank you for watching.
▲
Export Selection