Judging Freedom - After Bakhmut, Is Russia Still Advancing_ Col Daniel Davis

Episode Date: May 24, 2023

See omny.fm/listener for privacy information.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

You know when you're trying to think of a song but just can't quite remember the name? Well, using weed in your teens can make you forget things you want to remember. Want proof? Check out the facts at mindovermarijuana.com. That's mindovermarijuana.com. Sponsored by the California Department of Public Health. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, May 24th, 2023. It's 3.30 in the afternoon here in Zurich, Switzerland. 5.30 in the, excuse me, what time is it where you are, Colonel?

9.30 in the morning. There you go. 9.30 in the morning on the east coast of the United States. Colonel Daniel Davis joins us now. So, Colonel, since last we spoke, Buckmoor has definitively fallen to the Russians. Even the Ukrainians have acknowledged this. What do you see as next in the military conflagration in Ukraine?

Well, I think that there's a decent chance that after some period of rest and recovery, the Wagner Group itself may continue on towards Sversk, which is another town not too far from Bakhmut, and on the way to Slavyansk and Kramatorsk, they could be moving in that direction. But it's also possible that the Vokta Group may just go into an extended period of time to rebuild its strength while some other Russian units move on. But it's pretty expected that at some point pretty soon that Russia will try to keep the pressure on the Ukrainian side because they don't want to give them a chance to recover. Is Ukraine still planning a so-called spring offensive or have they given up the ghost on that? Well, you know, it's starting to look like that they're going to hold off even longer,

possibly till well into the summer. And from a tactical point of view, that makes sense because they clearly don't have the striking power right now to have a successful operation. If they attempt because of pressure or to feel like they have to do something to keep the morale of the country or to keep the West continuing to provide weapons, it's a really big gamble because if they get shot up and they lose their striking power without making any kind of consequential gains, then they become very vulnerable to a Russian counterattack. And by all reports, Russia has a very large contingent of over 100,000 troops in the western part of Russia that have not yet been engaged, that are still very fresh. And that's got to be looming heavy on Zelensky.

Or is the Ukrainian military large enough? Is it trained enough? Is it equipped enough to conduct an offensive into Russia or even into Eastern Ukraine? You know, I don't think that it is. And I think that, you know, we're already starting to see some anecdotal evidence because, look, since late last year, the Wagner Group specifically put an offensive into Solidar, which they took, and then into Bakhmut, which they took. It took a lot longer than many people thought. I'm sure the Russians would have wanted. But here's the fact. Ukraine never stopped them. Even though they were only making incremental progress, they kept throwing brigade after brigade into that

cauldron to try and prevent the loss of Bakhmut, and they couldn't succeed. Then in the latter phase, they tried to launch a tactical counterattack around the flanks of Bakhmut to try and cut off the support that Wagner was using for its troops in there, and those bogged down after just about a few days, and since the last weekend, there hadn't been any movement at all, so even that small-scale thing seemed to bog down. How they could launch a large scale operation is uncertain. Do you know or believe from your own sources that there was a conflict between the high military command and President Zelensky about whether Bakhmut was worth it, about whether the loss of life was worth it, and whether they should have just left the city earlier. Now they're gone, but there's maybe 50,000, 60,000 dead Ukrainians there.

Right, yeah, and that's been going on. I follow a couple of Ukrainian telegram channels and a couple of specific Russian telegram channels that stand out and have over the full course of this war as being two of the most reliable sources that actually tell the truth, even when it's bad for their side. And that has been reported as far back as December when reportedly Zelushny said militarily, it doesn't make any sense to continue to hold Bakhmut because they have already prepared defensive positions that are very strong to the west of that and it made plenty of sense for Russia for Ukraine to reposition to that and here's the reason why because if you go back

to those positions you have this long area of open ground in front of it you have all of your front defensive positions dug you have a defensive in depth and you have places for your artillery to get resupplied and to hit the other side and all the resupply that you need from multiple angles. None of those things existed in Baklut after about January. And so Ukraine really hamstrung itself by losing all those troops and gaining nothing and still lost the city. So I do think that there was probably some friction in there. So the Russians effectively, and they use a crude term, forgive me, the Russians effectively used Bakhmut as a meat grinder, as an instrument with which to destroy Ukrainian troops. Well, I mean, Prigozhin said that from the outset,

at least from January on. I mean, that's the term. that from the outset, at least from January on. I mean, that's the term. He's the one that came up with that term and he willingly decided to use it. Now, the Ukraine side subsequently claimed, well, that's no, that's what we're doing. We're using it as a meat grinder so that we just suck up all these Russian units. But here's the thing. I mean, they claimed even the Ukrainian intelligence that Wagner had somewhere around 70,000 troops in December, you know, with all these convicts and whatnot, when they started attacking. And yet, his side never ran out of power. And there were brigades coming in from the Russian side. They had some help with artillery and some aircraft and some flank support from Russian regulars. But

almost all of this was done by Wagner. So the numbers just aren't adding up and the results definitely speak for themselves. Now, this Prokofiev fellow is unique, to say the least. He sometimes has derisively been called Putin's chef, to which he said, why did they call me chef? I don't even know how to cook. They should call me Putin's butcher. That's what I do for him. So he willingly boasts that that is the way he operates. But more recently, Colonel, I know you know this, he's been harshly critical of the Russian military command, and even somewhat critical of President Putin himself. I mean, as recently as 24 hours ago, he called for martial law in Russia. What is that all about? Yeah, I tell you what, Prygoshin, what he's been doing over the last several months, especially, that wouldn't work in any military in the world, autocrat or Democrat. I mean, just

think back in the Korean War with korean war with uh the famous beloved macarthur was sacked because of his insubordination to the president of the united states even we do that kind of stuff and the fact that uh progozhin has not been sacked tells you a couple of important things that uh some we know and some we can speculate on uh what we know is that without putin he doesn't stand if putin says you know i'm tired of this it's not going to work uh you're challenging my authority and i can't let anybody else try to do that so we're going to sack you or worse which often happens in russia so we know that putin is still on his side but even more so uh putin and and progosian need each

other because uh unique among all Russian formations The Wagner has been the only one that has been resolutely successful And going all the way back to Mariupol All the way through to now Soledar and Bakhmut And so he can't just sack him Because the majority of those fighters in Wagner Are loyal to Prigozhin and then to Russia And you see that with their flags

Does Yevgeny Prigozhin actually command this unit as if he were a lieutenant colonel or a colonel or a one-star actually on the field? Or does he just speak for them? Does he just finance them? Does he just recruit them? No, and that's one of the reasons why he has such loyalty from his troops. You know, unlike Shoigu, who's been to the front a couple of times in the war, I mean, Prigozhin basically lives at the front. I mean, he's in the front.

There was a video three days ago of him being at one of the forward positions in the last stages of the war, of the Battle of Bakhmut, where artillery was raining down. And they were concerned that, hey, are you OK? Because the shell just landed by. He's right there at the front and is constantly. and I can just tell you as someone who's fought, that just shows enormous loyalty. I had that for Doug McGregor when I saw him under fire in the Battle of 7-3 Easting, and that turned into a lifetime of admiration, which exists to this day um who finances the wagner group is it his money or does the russian government finance it oh it's 100 from the russian government he doesn't he just makes money it's i mean it's a you know it's a professional military corporation and and so they

it's just a company that provides a service and they get paid for it. But I mean, you see that without the ammunition from the government, without the airplanes from the government, the artillery, all the stuff, I mean, he certainly couldn't have that independently. So the government of Russia completely supports Ukraine. One of his recent complaints was about the draft. And he basically said the children of russian elites will spend the summer sunbathing on the baltic sea the children of russian working people will be coming home to moscow in zinc coffins does he have a point yeah uh he's certainly amplifying a voice that a lot of his uh fighters are having and even a lot of regular fighters, because it certainly is like every country that has ever fought a war.

There's a definite imbalance between the elite and the regular working class people. And he's given a voice to that. And I will just say about Prigozhin, while both sides do need each other, that's a very fine line and a fine balance. And if Pergozhin gets too far off the reservation, he may one day find himself in trouble because the day that he's more of a liability than a support, you know, in Russia, anybody can be eliminated and he's no exception. So he's got to be careful for himself. I didn't know there was a First Amendment in Russia. Actually, there is language in the Russian Constitution comparable to the First Amendment in Russia. Actually, there is language in the Russian Constitution comparable to the First Amendment. It's hardly enforced. But one of the things he's been saying is the disparity between the elites and the non-elites and their children's involvement in the war

is so great that if it's not balanced or comes closer to balance, President Putin should prepare for, now this is a word that's got to be criminal just to utter in Russia, revolution. Yeah, and that's why I say that Prigozhin for himself has to be very careful because he can't go too far. But right now, that's just nonsense. I mean, you see that the latest legitimate poll in Russia shows that Putin has still after all of this war and all the missteps still has 80% support among the general population. So across all echelons to include even the working class people. So there's no danger that right now and even in 1917 that only came after three years of war when Russia had lost 5 million troops. Only then did the uprising become possible. So there's grumbling. I am sure that that's accurate, but it's not going to turn into

anything. I mean, Russians are used to this kind of stuff throughout their history. So I don't see any danger of that in the near term, not without a major, major reversal on the battlefield. Are there anti-Putin Russians who are attacking towns and villages or checkpoints or military installations in Russia? And if so, how in God's name can they get away with that? Yeah, there may be some. I suspect that there are some because there's been reports for several months now of some group that calls itself the liberation of Russian troops or something to that effect. And they've been doing some small scale skirmishes here and there. But this was outright sent by Ukraine. And you don't have to take anybody's word for it because they were equipped with American armored personnel carriers, American Humvees, Western machine guns, and tons of ammunition,

German, I think, and maybe French, or it was possibly Turkish vehicles. Everything was formed from Ukraine. They were supported by artillery launched from Ukraine. So this was 100% of Ukrainian operation. And it's just in a lot of the Russians just over the top of filled with anger, because this wasn't even a military garrison of any sort. It's just a civilian town that they used to attack. So of course, in Russia, this is playing as a terrorist attack by Ukraine. And by definition, it's hard to argue with that. But I think that it's going to backfire because it appears that Ukraine wanted to distract their people from the loss of Bakhmut. And so they wanted to show that we're doing something in russia taking the fight to the enemy etc but they want to hide behind this alleged russian uh internal situation which budenov today their uh cia equivalent is saying oh yeah this is their deal it's not ours

but obviously that's patently untrue at face value but this could have a rebound effect on the russian people because it could make them angry enough that they're willing to support more aggressive attacks against Ukraine that so far Putin has been reluctant to do, but he may have more freedom because of what Ukraine did. When the president was with the G7 in Hiroshima last week, he announced, of course, his permission for our allies who have purchased F-16s from American manufacturers, German F-16s, but built in the United States, to distribute that, to give those to Ukraine. He also announced that America would be, the American government would be training

Ukrainian pilots. Here's President Biden a week ago. United States, together with our allies and partners, is going to begin training Ukrainian pilots and fourth generation fighter aircraft, including F-16s, to strengthen Ukraine's air force as part of a long-term commitment to Ukraine's ability to defend itself. Your colleagues, Tony Schaefer and Colonel McGregor, have argued that it'll take a year to a year and a half to train those pilots. In fact, Colonel Schaefer says it may take even longer if they're already pilots and they have to unlearn, be untrained effectively from their instinctual reactions in operating an old fashioned Soviet era Russian MiG to operating a more modern era American F-16. So my question to

you is, is this going to work? Is it too little too late? Can these things even get off the ground with Ukrainian pilots in a reasonable period of time? Or, and I'm breaking the rules of short questions, forgive me, or are Americans going to pilot these things? Well, those are both open questions, frankly, especially the last one there. I was actually speaking with a retired Air Force general just the day day before yesterday a former s-16 pilot and and he made those same comments he echoed what tony had said there about the fact that they're trained in a mentality that's different so you can have the the skills of a mig-29 pilot you can have the skills to fly and transfer those and probably within four months could learn how to fly the

f-16 in terms of getting in the air and performing some of the functions. But the fighting the aircraft and the linking it with the integrated defense system that's necessary to maximize the use of the F-16, which is what makes it so strong and powerful, is going to be extremely difficult. But look, this F-16 pilot just really underscored that the F-16 is not a stealth aircraft. It can be seen, and it is extremely vulnerable to both the Russian S-300, the Russian S-400, and the MiG-31s and the Su-35s that Russia has. So it will be very vulnerable, and it will basically help them defend maybe like the airspace over their own capital in Kiev. But if they start going toward the front line, they're probably going to be dropped just like the MiG-29s have been.

Is this inching towards World War III? American F-16s, American built F-16s, American trained pilots F-16s, God forbid American boys and girls piloting these things. They're going to be shot down. At the moment, it's not any more than when we put in the tanks or the Patriot systems or the M777 howitzers in the beginning. So many so-called red lines that Russia didn't like, but especially because these things are not going to tilt the balance anywhere, it's going to be more annoyance from Russia. The only caveat is that if they start to fire into Russia, because that's what my F-16 pilot friend told me was the biggest risk of potential escalation is if they're to be effective

in the frontline, they have to attack ground targets on Russian soil where the S-300, S-400 systems are. That would change the dynamics. And then I think that would open up American or NATO sites in Poland that support the war. Then you have the risk. If that doesn't happen, then I don't see us moving towards World War III at the moment. Here's President Biden mentioning World War III a year ago. War against Ukraine was never going to be a victory. Democrats are rising to meet the moment, rallying the world on the side of peace and security. We're showing a strength and we'll never falter. But look, the idea, the idea that we're going to send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks

and trains going in with American pilots and American crews, just understand, and don't kid yourself no matter what you all say that's called World War III okay American pilots American tanks American planes that's called World War III has he had a change of mind Colonel well clearly he has and that's that's really disappointing and that that clip right there, along with these F-16 decisions, really underscores one of my biggest complaints, is that we have no strategy. What is the expected outcome of this? Where is this going? How is sending F-16s going to help American national interest? And anytime you use American military forces of any degree, there has to be some benefit to our country.

But as it is right now, it's just kind of reactionary. Oh, they want some planes. OK, well, they didn't. Russia didn't get mad about the tanks and they didn't get mad about the Patriots. Yeah, sure. Why not? Let's throw some F-16s at them. Not ours, of course.

And certainly I'm a big advocate of that. We do not need to send this. If anyone, our allies need to do this. But there is no strategy connected to this. And so there's no end state. There's no reason to think, is this even going to be successful? Because you don't even know what success looks like. That's a big problem when you're talking about armed conflict.

Colonel, not only is there no strategy, what's the goal? I mean, if you ask Victoria Nuland, the goal is to liberate Crimea. Well, that's not reasonably feasible. In the back of her mind, she may say to drive Vladimir Putin from office. That's not feasible. If you ask the president, what's the goal? I don't know that he can answer it. So no goal, no strategy, no off-ramp, just keep plowing money and equipment into a meat grinder. That's the issue. If you don't have an end state in mind, even if it's a difficult one to attain, if you at least have some kind of end state that everything works toward, then there's a chance of success of some degree. But we don't have one beyond what Secretary of Defense Austin said

early on, which is to damage Russia, to harm Russia. That seems to be it, and it seems as simple as that. Yeah, throwing some F-16s can help destroy some more targets. Sure, let's throw some of those, because that's the objective. I think the only thing you can rationally say is our objective is just to, quote, harm Russia. But that is egregious to me and a real big problem to me just as a human being, because that's coming at the expense of the Ukrainian people, at the Ukrainian armed forces, because

we keep giving them hope they can win. Colonel, are we using Ukraine as a battering ram? Effectively, you are. Even if it's not intentional, that's the practical result. And the Ukrainian people and cities are paying the cost of this so well i mean we've gone from mariupol all the way to bakhmut with now just level literally leveled cities and now probably chromatores and slaviansk next in the target list and and those people many of them may never come back to their to their houses uh and who knows how long this is going to go it could be that at some point the Ukrainian military is to become so thin and brittle that it just collapses. And we've certainly seen that happen in history,

and it's really hard to predict when or even if that'll happen. But if it does, then all of these so-called harming Russia may perversely undercut the Ukrainian side over time so that it collapses and then Russia wins. Now, how's that going to work out for harming Russia by giving them even more territory? And I think that's the biggest risk that we're taking with this gamble of a so-called strategy of giving them all these items. Colonel Dan Davis, always a pleasure, sir, no matter what we talk about. Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you very much, Judge. Of course, my friends, more as we get it. Judge Napolitano for joining us. Thank you very much, Judge. Of course, my friends, more as we get it. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.