러시아와 북한과의 전략적 동맹 및 지정학적 변화

### 푸틴 러시아 대통령의 판도를 바꾼 외교와 미국의 사스탈 공격
* 🇷🇺 "푸틴의 북한과 베트남 방문은 **러시아와 서방과의 파트너십이 끝났으며, 북한은 이제 러시아와 전략적으로 연계**되어 있다는 신호입니다."
* 🇰🇵 식량 공급 보장 및 기술 공유를 포함한 러시아의 대북 관여는 **북한의 경제 및 군사 능력의 변화**로 이어질 것입니다.
* 🇨🇳 러시아의 대북 행보에 따른 중국의 불편한 입장은 **러시아가 중국에 종속되지 않고 자국의 국익을 위해 행동**한다는 것을 나타냅니다.
* 🇺🇸 미국 국무부는 **새로운 러시아-북한 동맹의 중요성**을 충분히 인식하지 못하고 있으며 어떻게 대응할지 확신하지 못하고 있습니다.
* 🇺🇦 크림반도 사스탈의 해변에서 발생한 미국의 민간인 공격은 **러시아에 의해 전쟁 행위로 간주**되며 분쟁을 확대할 수 있는 가능성이 있습니다.
* 🚫 미 국방부는 이 공격에 대한 책임을 부인하고 있지만, **미국은 우크라이나 미사일 공격에 대한 정보 제공과 지원**에 깊숙이 관여하고 있습니다.
* 러시아는 이번 공격에 대해 **흑해 영공 폐쇄, 드론 격추, 위성 표적 공격, 물류 거점 공격** 등의 대응을 할 가능성이 있습니다.
* 📅 2025년 봄까지 젤렌스키가 우크라이나 대통령으로 교체될 것이라는 푸틴의 예측은 **러시아가 분쟁에서 장기전을 벌이고 있음을 시사**합니다.

사스탈의 민간인에 대한 미국의 공격은 러시아에 대한 전쟁 행위이며 지정학적 역학 관계를 크게 변화시켰습니다.

[Music] [Music] Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, June 24th, 2024. Scott Ritter joins us now. Scott, my dear friend, thank you for your time and your analysis that forthcoming. No matter what we talk about, it's always a pleasure and deeply appreciated. Um, before we get to the American attack on Saastal and before we get to some questions I have for you about Israel, uh, can you tell us your view of the significance of President Putin's trips to North Korea and Vietnam last week, particularly that unbelievable press conference he gave in Vietnam in which he answered every question under the sun with brilliance and articulation. Russia had been a nation for some time under Vladimir Putin that sought to cooperate with the West as a partner, and Russia always viewed itself as a partner with the West. And, uh, Russia feels betrayed by the West, especially with what's been going on in Ukraine and how the West has performed. Um, what Vladimir Putin did on this trip is send

a signal that the partnership is over. That, um, and, and, and one of the key aspects of this partnership was the way Russia worked with the United Nations, with China, and others to, um, put pressure on North Korea to walk away from its nuclear weapons program. Russia was not an advocate of North Korea's nuclear weapons program. It violated Russia's sensibilities when it came to nuclear nonproliferation, and Russia had, um, signed on to many of the sanctions that had been imposed on North Korea, uh, but now that Russia has been subjected to, uh, sanctions and Russia sees that the West is not interested in equitable solutions but rather using the processes of sanctioning of so-called consensus building to destroy nations to, uh, not, not achieve, achieve, you know, positive outcomes but only outcomes that are positive for the United States. Russia has walked away and said that's over. Russia has engaged with North Korea, uh, on a level that I don't think the American people fully comprehend, um, this is a strategic engagement from top to bottom, and it changes everything.

know, one of the things that plagued North Korea going into this was food shortages. They had a major problem with their agricultural sector, and a significant part of their labor force was diverted to very inefficient agricultural practices that oftentimes failed and led to starvation, which also led to a reduction in efficiency of the workforce. North Koreans will never go hungry again. Russia will guarantee their food supplies. What this does is liberate a good section of their workforce, now well-fed, to be integrated into an expanding industry, an industry that will be thoroughly integrated with Russia's industry, which we know, since the imposition of sanctions by the West, has been thriving. This is defense industry and civil industry. This is going to radically transform North Korea. North Korea will never be the same looking back, and the irony here is that it could have been an American president being driven down the streets of Pyongyang. Donald Trump tried to achieve an outcome that would have eliminated North Korea's nuclear weapons, brought North Korea into the fold, and allowed North

Korea this kind of Economic Development um and not allowed Russia this wonderful U geopolitical strategic opportunity but Donald Trump failed betrayed by John Bolton betrayed by Mike Pompeo Joe Biden refused to pick up the patan even though Kim Jong-un held it out there and said please please please run with this we want to go in this direction what we have now is instead of a denuclearized North Korea we have a North Korea that is sitting on um you know very Advanced ballistic missiles that have nuclear weapons on top and they're going only going to get better. One of the things that Vladimir Putin committed to was turning over technology and weapon systems that'll strengthen North Korea and one of the things you're going to see is that North Korea's nuclear deterrent is going to become um of a nature that prohibits any American preemption. There will be no American South Korean Japanese victory over North Korea going forward. North Korea is now strategically aligned with Russia. You go to war with North Korea you're going to

war with Russia. You know there's a famous photograph or infamous, depending on your point of view, that shows the Korean Peninsula, and people use it to mock North Korea where they show Southern, uh, South Korea all lit up, and then you see the North, and it's dark with a tiny little dot where Pyongyang is. In three years, you're going to see North Korea lit up like you've never seen it before. This is transformational. It's empowering because in one stroke, Vladimir Putin destroyed the tri-atal Alliance that the United States was seeking to build with Japan and South Korea. Japan and South Korea now recognize that North Korea isn't just not going away. North Korea is going to be there stronger than ever, and that if Japan and South Korea want to survive in this region, they need to start doing business with North Korea. This is a fundamental Game Changer. Then he went to Vietnam, and the important things about Vietnam is Vietnam has been wooed by the United States. We tried to bring Vietnam

over into the asan. Um, you know, um, organization, uh, the Associate of South Asian, ASAN, Southeast Asian States. Um, by receiving Vladimir Putin the way they did, Vietnam said, You can't count on us, the West. We're not with you. We're with these guys. These are the guys we want to be with. This is a recognition of, on the part of Vietnam. And indeed, now we see Malaysia, another Asian nation, saying, Hey, we want to join BRICS. Vietnam's going to want to join BRICS. Everybody's going to want to join BRICS. BRICS is a game-changing, um, forum. And Vladimir Putin, of course, Russia, is the head of the BRICS, uh, meeting this, this year. Vladimir Putin is, is leading the charge. What he did is set Russia's marker down on the Pacific in the same way that he has set it down on Africa. Russia is a dominant force in the Pacific today. This was supposed to be America's pivot to the Pacific. This is supposed to be our region of the world. And Russia said, Not today, Charlie. All right, you, you

just gave an incredibly succinct and thorough summary of what has happened in the past week and the significance of it. Enter China. What is the relationship between China, North Korea, and Russia from and after this new Russia-North Korea alliance? Well, it's interesting. You know, a lot of people, and I remember reading this, people are saying Putin could have done, couldn't have done this without getting Xi Jinping's permission first. He had to go to China. That was his first state visit, and he had to get permission. Putin didn't ask permission of anybody. Putin doesn't ask permission of anybody. Putin told the Chinese this is what he's going to do. It puts the Chinese in an uncomfortable position because they had not yet walked away from the sanction of North Korea. They were continuing to abide by some of the or most of the restrictions put on North Korea because they didn't want to incur the wrath of the West in terms of unnecessary sanctioning. They have enough problems as it is. Putin, by Putin taking the lead, he's driving

this boat, and this is an important thing to point out because people keep saying that Russia is subordinated to China. Russia is not subordinated to anybody. They have a great relationship with China. They will work with China where there is a place for them to work, but where Russia needs to act to put forward Russia's best interest, Russia will do so. And that's what this trip proved. And China now will have to conform to what Russia's done because they can't undo this. North Korea is now plugged in strategically to Russia in a way that they could have and should have been plugged into China. This is a missed opportunity by China. The same thing with Vietnam. Vietnam, people remember 1979. There was a very short but very violent and bloody war between Vietnam and China. They are two nations that don't get along. They have some issues over gas exploration. Russia going to Vietnam, saying we're with you on this, is also a signal to China that Russia doesn't automatically fall in behind the Chinese line, that China will

have to consider Russian national interests when pursuing their global policies. So, if Professor Mir Shimer were here, he would say, What about China's hegemony and lust for dominance in the South China Sea? Well, again, I would push back, Mr. Professor Mir Shimer, and say, Um, those are your words. Um, the Chinese aren't seeking hegemony. The Chinese are seeking equitable outcomes. China recognizes the South China Sea is a part of their territory, and the parts that aren't in their territory are in their sphere of interest. That doesn't mean that China wants to control it. It means that China wants to be in a partnership with these nations, an equitable partnership based upon, you know, mutually beneficial trade relations. That's what I would say. It's a total mischaracterization of China's policy. Got it. Well, in fairness to him, I'm guessing what I think he would say. I haven't discussed this with him yet. He's a big fan of yours, Scott. I'm a big fan of his, and I always point out that

there's a reason why they call him professor, and they don't call me Professor. So, I recognize his intellectual status. Matt told me he was at one of your lectures once, and he said we should call Scott Professor. It was like a grad school course on whatever you were discussing. I don't remember the topic. Um, does Tony Blinkin understand what you just summarized about the Western loss and the Russian gain? Ask if Joe Biden understands it, because who knows what he understands. I don't know what he understands anymore. Department understand the significance of what you just described. Well, they do because I've heard Blinkin, and I've heard the State Department. I've heard US government officials in the Biden Administration articulate something similar to this. They acknowledge China's role. They acknowledge that China's role is um, trade-related, that China is not seeking to uh, you know, push itself out militarily, that where China does respond militarily, it's usually um, reacting to provocations from the West. So, I think

strategically speaking, the United States understands this. It doesn't mean the United States agrees with the direction this is going. Just because you recognize, uh, you know what I said to be true, doesn't mean that that's the policy the United States wants in place. Weapons that can reach Washington DC, Miami, Dallas, and Los Angeles, right? Oh, North Korea, they, they, they recognize this as a total Game Changer right now. The United States is in a total flux. We don't know what to do about what Russia just did with North Korea. We have no idea. Changes everything. Okay, my question was in Artful. What I meant to ask you was, does the American State Department recognize and appreciate the significance of the new relationship between Russia and North Korea? And you're saying they recogniz they don't appreciate it. They have no IDEA. They have no idea how to respond. They weren't expecting this. Nobody was anticipating that Putin would go and they thought that he was going to go and try and get some sort of limited, uh, you know

ammunition deal. Here we're going to give you a little bit of this. We need your ammunition because we're desperate for ammunition. Didn't go there to get the ammunition. Putin went there to change the entire geopolitical balance of the Pacific. And that's what he did. Okay. Um, what is the significance veering away from this of the American attack on civilians on a beach in saastal Crimea yesterday. We'll give you a hint. I think you've been on their show U. Demetri Sims has a show 60 minutes in uh in Russian. I think you've been a guest. I was on that show. I mean the father or the son, but I've been on with each of them. Yeah. The Father, the father. And you know, I so I I got to listen to Three uh retired generals and strategic U thinkers who are plugged into the uh into Putin's Inner Circle. Obviously, uh talk about um what happened and what the consequences should be. And it was um it was frightening to listen to them speak.

about war with America um I don't know if every American understands. We committed an act of war against Russia yesterday. We, the United States, committed an act of war. The thing I like to tell Americans is, had the Russians done something similar to us, we would be at war with Russia already. Uh, we would never allow this kind of attack to take place on American soil. We wouldn't tolerate. We would go directly to the source. Um, why we believe that the Russians um shouldn't be able to do the same thing is beyond why we believe they wouldn't do the same thing. And one of the reasons is, I I I think that the our government is hoping that Russia does overreact because, you know, they just had a failed peace Summit in Switzerland and now they've got a summit, a NATO Summit coming up in July, uh, where they have to talk about how to respond to the Russian threat. Well, right now, the Russian threat is Russia winning in Ukraine and hypotheticals about what could be. But if Russia overreacts and

actually starts lashing out, then suddenly that threat becomes discernible, and now NATO has something to build policy around. And this is, you know, what the Russians need to be aware of is that this is a trap, very much a trap set by the United States, but it's a brutal trap that killed five children. Five children. Imagine you're on the beach with your family in the summer, and a Russian cluster bomb impacts and kills your kid. Where are you standing on this issue? And that's what every American has to understand. This struck a peaceful, um, you know, beach where tourists were out, the civilians, the local population was out, um, this was an act of war, and you know, Americans need to recognize what their government's done and what the potential consequences this action has. Has the State Department or the Defense Department responded in any way? What we just, Chris, put the picture up again. This is the beach, Scott, in the foreground. Of course, you see there it is in the foreground, you see people laying on the beach.

background you see the cluster bomb an illegal weapon exploding and killing children well what the Pentagon has said is that we're not responsible. Ukraine picks their own targets that may be true. Ukraine may pick the target but it's based upon intelligence provided by the United States and the guidance that's put in is provided by intelligence provided by the United States. This does not happen in a vacuum. The United States is very much The Hidden Hand and it's not just that we give them data. Understand that attack's missiles. The Ukrainians don't have the technical capacity to do the programming of the targeting so it's an American hand that's actually putting the Target in the targeting data in it may be a Ukrainian finger that pushes the launch button but everything prior to that is American provided so we are very much part if this was let me put it this way if this was a murder trial judge the Americans would be complicit. Would be Co you know not just co-conspirators but

they would be charged with murder because they provided the gun. They loaded the gun. They aimed the gun. And then somebody else's finger pulled the trigger. But you could get everybody involved in murder on that one, right? Here's a Swiss military expert channeling his best Scott Ritter cut, cut number nine with regards to um direct involvement of the United States of America. Well, let's put it this way. Any weapon system that is using GPS technically indirectly is using um us uh uh data. True. 100% true. Could these attacks have been fired without the assistance of American Intel? No or technicians theoretically. The answer is if if you Ukrainian was trained on programming the data, but that's a special course that you have to go to that the Ukrainians haven't gone to. Okay, what about what about top secret codes needed to download data from uh uh satellites? No. If we're bringing in uh classified information from the satellites, uh when it's brought into a down to a ground station, that ground

station is American-controlled um then the Americans would take that data clean it up and turn over you know what they what they would to the to the Ukrainians but that data link and uh and control of both ends of that data link is done with with Americans so the US Embassy is directly involved in this I mean that's the bottom line is that's the most secure place for a data link of this nature is the US Embassy and then the US Embassy will Farm it out to u to other locations inside Ukraine as needed you um are a student of Vladimir Putin before I ask you what you think he will do here is the statement from uh foreign minister lavro it's a full screen read it us is responsible for this massacre and they will get an answer all flight missions for American attack missiles are programmed by American Specialists based on their own us satellite intelligence data therefore the responsibility for the deliberate missile strike against the civilian population of saastal Lies primarily with Washington which supplied this

weapon to Ukraine, as well as with the Kiev regime, from whose territory this strike was launched. Such actions will not go unanswered. What will the answer be, Scott Ritter? Well, I'm not in the business of telling the Russians what to do, nor do I really... I'm not thrilled about the Russians doing anything against my country. I mean, I'm not going to sit here and say this makes me happy. You understand what happened, you understand the significance of it. You talked earlier about how we would react if that were Long Beach Island, New Jersey, Miami, Florida. What the Russians were talking about today is sort of graduated. The first thing is they're... they're saying make the Black Sea closed airspace to close down Black Sea airspace to get the American drones to get intelligence aircraft and say you're... I'm sorry, this is now Russia, and if you want to fight us over this, we'll be more than happy, but we are declaring this to be a zone of military operations.

United States did that when we, uh, closed down the Adriatic Sea when we, uh, went to war against, uh, against, uh, Serbia, uh, in 1999. We just shut down the Adriatic Sea and basically said we own this, the NATO owns this, you can't fly in this. Russia is thinking about doing the same thing and then if the United States wants to militarily confront them on that, so be it. The next step they are thinking about is just shooting down a Global Hawk system. Um, that's an act of War but they claim it would be an act of self-defense. And another thing they're looking at, what, what does that mean who's shooting down what? Well, the Russians would shoot down the, the Global Hawk drone that's currently flying Loops off the coast of Crimea in the international airspace over, over, um, over the Black Sea. They would just shoot it down. The other thing they're talking about is taking down satellites, um, basically this all the satellites are involved in the communications of the intelligence data Etc to take that out. And then the last

thing they're talking about is hitting ground stations. Um, places where the attacks are. Um, are, are brought in the, the logistics. These are things America would do, by the way. I just want everybody to understand that, instead of going, this is insane, just take a look at how America operates. We would not allow a weapon system to have a discernable Logistics flow into a combat zone that attacking American troops. We would hit every single one of those logistic nodes that we could. And that's something Russia wants, so I think they'll, they'll, I, I really think a thing that is being considered right now is, uh, shutting down the Black Sea. The problem is that's exactly what the United States wants. That's see now that allows the United States to go into the NATO Summit and say, see, the Russians, they're irresponsible, they're shutting down the Black Sea. The best thing Russia could do right now is not a damn thing, excuse my language, uh, just continue to win this war, continue to beat the Ukrainians on.

the battlefield because that's what puts the United States and NATO in the difficult position in they're they're in right now. Where they're doing acts of desperation like authorizing Ukrainians to strike two questions in the third of your options. Attacking Logistics locations that would mean killing Americans correct uh most likely yeah okay uh bigger question how the hell did this happen who in the United States of America made a decision to allow the Ukrainians to kill children on a beach. I mean this goes all the way back to the expansion of NATO well we just don't care about Russia we've never cared about Russia we've never sought to peacefully coexist with Russia and so we have minimized any consideration of Russia and Russians in this and this led us down a path where today today in order to justify our policies and justify the Allies we have namely vomir zalinsky and the Ukrainians we have to buy into their messaging and the Ukrainian.

messaging is that Crimea is Ukrainian, not Russian, and that any Russian in Crimea is there as an illegal occupier, therefore not an innocent victim. This is exactly what Mr. Pelock, one of the senior advisers to Ziny, just said yesterday. He said, They're not innocents, those are Russian occupiers. We can strike that. Now the fact that America's remained silent on this, silent on the fact that the ally that we're empowering to carry out these attacks is just admitted to killing innocent civilians, which is a war crime, and we're saying nothing about it, just shows you again how far we've drifted away from the norms and values that we ostensibly embrace as a nation. Wow. Do you think this was done intentionally by the Ukrainians? Do you think American Intel knew that children would be killed? No, I think that they were actually there's a military airfield nearby, this beach. They fired five attacks, four of them were shot down out over the

water one came in and I think got hit by the Russians, and uh, and and either prematurely detonated or or U, you know, sent the cluster Munitions um on onto the beach, so um, I I don't think uh that this was NE necessarily a um, you know, the Ukrainian saying hey, we're going to attack innocent civilians, but it's the consequences of their action. They are using cluster Munitions in uh areas where there are civilians, and it's um, you know, you you have to accept responsibility for your actions. Aren't cluster ammunitions um illegal under international law? I guess the US and Ukraine haven't agreed to that, but they're still illegal under international law. No, no, international law to be binding, you have to you have to buy into it, um, you can't have some. There there is of course a convention that prohibits use a cluster and Nations have signed on to that, but we haven't signed on to it, and we do use cluster Munitions, and again as somebody who's been to war and and

is I'm a big fan of cluster munitions. Under certain circumstances, they're very lethal weapons. Um, they're very good against certain targets. Um, war is about killing, and uh, if you're going to go to war, kill. Kill as efficiently as possible, but you don't kill innocent civilians. How do you see this playing out? Vladimir Putin will do nothing. The Americans will be, uh, further, uh, frustrated. The war will continue to expand. At some point, Zelinsky's government and military will collapse. I think that, again, I, there, there's a lot of anger in Russia right now, so I can't, I can't predict outcomes with, um, any level of certainty here. The Russians have shown great restraint in avoiding unnecessary escalation because they understand that they are on the proper trajectory to achieve, um, the victory they want to achieve, uh, at the price they're willing to pay for that victory. Um, the Russians may very well, um, do nothing. Um, what I think what they'll do is you're going to see a more intensive

um uh program of strikes inside Ukraine designed to interdict the logistics associated with attack's deliveries. But when it comes to attacking NATO or the United States are expanding this conflict that the Russians um aren't going to do anything at this juncture, but their patience is running out. Here's uh President Putin on is zalinski shortterm or long term and when will the West Tire of him cut number two. And there is a decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of 2015, which says quite clearly that the term of the Ukrainian president is 5 years, no more nor or less. What are we even talking about in the west? They, I think they just don't want the West just doesn't doesn't want to change a president for a different figure. It's obvious they they have their hands full with other things, and it's zinski who's uh who will be charged with making all the unpopular decision decision, and after they are done with him, he will be replaced. They are done with him, they'll

replace him. The interesting thing is, he actually put a time frame on this. He said, By the spring of 2025, which means that Russia isn't planning on this war ending before the spring of 2025, which should scare the Ukrainians to death because Russia has taken down the Ukrainian energy-producing infrastructure down to 23%. By the time winter comes, it may be in single digits. Ukraine will not survive the winter, and this is going to create tremendous pressure on the Ukrainian presidency, on the Ukrainian Parliament, on the Ukrainian military. It'll take Ukraine to the breaking point. Russia's playing the long game here. I actually didn't think they would do this a year ago. I thought that the West would be able to mobilize its defense industry efficiently, that Russia's defense industry couldn't keep up. I was proven wrong on both accounts. The West has shown incompetence beyond belief when it comes to mobilizing defense industry, and Russia has done laps, has lapped them. Russia is doing very well defensively.

Russia's sitting in the cap bir seat as they say. They just need to kill Ukrainian troops, which they're doing very efficiently. The Ukrainians were about to comply with more dead Ukrainians by launching this 100,000-man counteroffensive into well-prepared Russian defensive positions in COV. They'll lose those 100,000, and then Russ will continue its incremental advance. But the thing is, the Russians, Putin has said, We could win this war now, but I'm not willing to suffer those losses. There's no need for us to sacrifice these troops. Time is on our side. And he, for the first time, has put a marker on the calendar, saying that we expect Zalinski to go sometime in the spring of 2025, which means that Russia will begin the process of looking for someone to negotiate termination of this conflict in the spring of 2025. Johnson argued this morning that we're actually giving away now that Ukraine's at the head of the line. It's above Saudi.

Arabia, it's above Israel in terms of priority, or at least this is what the State Department wants and the Defense Department want us to believe. Larry says that the Ukrainians are actually draining our supplies, using more than we are able to manufacture in the United States, and so the supply that which we would want for our own purposes, if God forbid we need them, is shrinking. Agreed 100%. Again, this comes back to the incompetence of our defense industry. We haven't scaled up appropriately and um, we going back to the words of General Christopher Cavoli, who's the commander of US forces NATO Ground Forces, uh, but he spoke in January, I think of 2023, to a Swedish defense for. He said that the United States and NATO hadn't imagined the scope in scale of the violence that is taking place in Ukraine. They didn't imagine it, uh, the level of casualties, the intensity of the fighting, the level of attrition was couldn't be imagined, which means we

we're not ready for this. We're not ready for how many people. We're not ready to fight a war where you lose hundreds of thousands of people in a short period of time. We're not ready to fight a war where you the potential of losing hundreds of thousands of tanks in a month's time is there. We're not ready for a war where you expend 10,000 rounds of ammunition or more a day. Um, we're just not prepared for it, and we haven't done anything in the intervening time since this conflict began to prepare for it. So we are, we're feeding munitions into a meat grinder that's grinding it up at a rate that far exceeds what we're doing to replenish it, and we're drawing down from the stocks that we need to fight a war to keep the Ukrainians up and running. And so we are literally bleeding ourselves white, uh, supporting the Ukrainians here. Scott, I wanted also to talk to you. We don't have

time now about the Zionist experiment, and if it has failed, we'll save that for either later this week or next week before the Fourth of July comes by. Thank you, uh, thank you very much, uh, for all this. We are very close to 400,000 subscriptions, which I was aiming for by the Fourth of July. I think we're going to hit it this week, in large measure because of you. Thanks for your thoughtfulness, thanks for your courage, and thanks for your vast, vast knowledge of all these things, and for your time. Thank you, my dear friend, thank you. Okay, wow, Scott Ritter on fire, there's nothing quite like it. We have an interesting day for you tomorrow, uh, as well, just as we did, uh, today. At 8 o'clock in the morning from Moscow, Pepe Escobar, at 9 o'clock in the morning, I don't know where he's coming from, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, at 11 in the morning, Karen Kwiatkowski, and at noon, Mato. My dear friends, thank you. Have a

Great evening, Judge Napal Teno for judging Freedom.

Scott Ritter : Putin Outfoxes Blinken

Hard-hitting legal/political news from a man who knows and respects the Constitution and the importance of defending individual freedoms. Judge Andrew P. Napolitano.

A daily discussion of news from the perspective that government is the negation of liberty, and the individual is greater than the state. Judge Andrew P. Napolitano is a graduate of Princeton University and the University of Notre Dame Law School. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. He sat on the bench from 1987 to 1995, when he presided over more than 150 jury trials and thousands of motions, sentencings, and hearings.

JudgeNap is nationally known for watching and reporting on the government as it takes liberty and property.

The Judge is the author of nine books on the U.S. Constitution, two of which have been New York Times Best Sellers. Learn more at JudgeNap.com




Judge Napolitano - Judging Freedom

북한과 베트남에서 푸틴의 전략적 움직임

푸틴 대통령의 최근 북한과 베트남 방문은 특히 우크라이나에 대한 서방의 조치에 대한 배신감에 대한 대응으로 러시아와 서방과의 파트너십이 끝났다는 신호입니다.

러시아의 북한에 대한 전략적 관여에는 식량 공급을 보장하고 북한 인력을 러시아 산업에 통합하는 것이 포함되며, 이는 북한을 근본적으로 변화시킬 것으로 기대됩니다.

푸틴 대통령은 북한의 핵 억지력을 강화하기 위해 기술과 무기 시스템을 제공하여 미국의 선제공격을 불가능하게 하고 북한과 러시아를 전략적으로 연계하기로 약속했습니다.

블라디미르 푸틴의 최근 행동이 미치는 영향

블라디미르 푸틴의 행동은 지정학적 지형을 변화시켜 북한을 강화하고 일본 및 한국과의 관계를 재편했습니다.

러시아와 북한과의 동맹은 아시아 태평양 지역에서 미국과 서방의 영향력에도 도전장을 내밀었습니다.

또한 푸틴의 독단성은 러시아가 중국에 종속되어 있다는 통념에 반기를 들었을 뿐만 아니라 러시아가 자국의 이익을 위해 행동할 것이라는 신호를 중국에 보내 양국 간의 전략적 역학 관계에 영향을 미쳤습니다.

중국의 남중국해 정책 이해하기

중국의 남중국해 정책은 패권이나 통제권을 추구하기보다는 공평한 파트너십과 상호 호혜적인 무역 관계를 구축하는 데 초점을 맞추고 있습니다.

블링켄 국무장관을 비롯한 미국 정부는 이 지역에서 중국의 역할을 인정하지만 중국의 방향에는 동의하지 않을 수 있습니다.

북한과 새로운 관계를 형성하려는 푸틴의 예상치 못한 행동은 미 국무부를 당황하게 만들었고 태평양의 지정학적 균형에 큰 영향을 미쳤습니다.

최근 크림 반도에서 발생한 미국의 민간인 공격은 푸틴의 이너서클과 연결된 러시아 퇴역 장성과 전략 사상가들 사이에서 우려를 불러 일으켰습니다.

러시아와의 전쟁 도발 혐의로 기소된 미국

미국은 정치적 이득을 위해 러시아의 과잉 반응을 유발하기 위해 러시아에 대한 전쟁 행위를 저질렀다는 비난을 받고 있습니다.

미국은 우크라이나 공격에 대한 정보 및 기술 지원 제공에 연루되어 폭력 사태에 연루되었다는 의혹을 받고 있습니다.

한 군사 전문가는 미국 정보기관과 기술자의 도움 없이는 공격이 이루어질 수 없었을 것이라고 주장합니다.

우크라이나 데이터 통제에서 미국 대사관의 역할

미국 대사관은 우크라이나의 데이터 링크를 통제하고 데이터를 정리하여 우크라이나에 제공하는 데 직접 관여하고 있습니다.

러시아 정부는 흑해 영공 폐쇄, 드론 격추, 위성 표적화, 지상국 타격 등 다양한 대응 조치를 고려하고 있습니다.

그러나 일부에서는 러시아가 취할 수 있는 최선의 조치는 아무것도 하지 않고 우크라이나 전쟁에서 승리하는 데 집중하는 것이라고 생각합니다.

이러한 접근 방식은 미국이 이 상황을 이용해 러시아를 무책임한 국가로 묘사하는 것을 막을 수 있습니다.

미국과 나토의 조치가 우크라이나 분쟁에 미친 영향

미국과 나토가 우크라이나 분쟁에 개입하면서 우크라이나 공습을 승인하는 등 절박한 조치가 취해졌습니다.

미국의 지원을 받는 우크라이나의 메시지는 공격을 정당화하고 민간인 사상자를 무시하는 등 윤리적 규범에서 벗어나는 방향으로 나아가고 있습니다.

집속탄 사용과 젤린스키 정부의 붕괴 가능성은 상황을 더욱 악화시키고 있으며, 러시아는 분쟁에서 원하는 결과를 얻기 위해 자제하는 모습을 보이고 있습니다.

우크라이나에 대한 러시아의 장기 전략

러시아는 우크라이나에서 2025년 봄까지 우크라이나 정부와 군에 압력을 가하는 것을 목표로 장기적인 전략을 펼치고 있습니다.

푸틴 대통령은 2025년에 전쟁을 끝내기 위해 협상 파트너를 찾겠다는 계획을 밝히며 분쟁의 시한을 설정했습니다.

서방은 방위 산업을 동원하는 데 어려움을 겪고 있으며 분쟁으로 인해 공급에 부담을 겪고 있습니다.

전쟁에 대한 준비 부족과 우크라이나에 대한 지속적인 지원

연사는 많은 사상자와 자원이 소모되는 전쟁에 대한 준비가 부족하다고 표현합니다.

우크라이나에 대한 지원으로 인해 미래의 잠재적 분쟁에 필요한 자원이 고갈되고 있습니다.

발표자는 또한 예정된 게스트에 대해 언급하며 지원에 대한 감사를 표합니다.