Judging Freedom - Col. Douglas Macgregor - Russia Ukraine War Day 48

Episode Date: April 12, 2022

Col. Douglas Macgregor - Russia Ukraine War Day 48See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the Bay with WGU. With courses available online 24-7 and monthly start dates, WGU offers maximum flexibility so you can focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu. Hello there, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, April 12, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, April 12, 2022. It's about two o'clock in the afternoon on the east coast of the United States. My guest today is a Judging Freedom favorite of the fans. Also one of my favorites for many years, Colonel Douglas McGregor, who knows more about the military than most people you hear spouting off opinions about it.

Colonel McGregor is a West Point graduate who spent his career in the United States Army. Colonel, it's a pleasure. Welcome back to Judging Freedom. Great to see you. So when you were here last, which was about three or four weeks ago, and I asked you, what do the nationalists, the globalists, the people who run the United States Department of State and their like minded colleagues in Europe really want out of the Russia Ukraine war? Without skipping a beat, you said regime change in Moscow. And I thought, well, all right, you know, maybe Doug is onto something, but nobody else is saying this. A week later, the president of the United States lets it slip out of his mouth in a major address that broadcast internationally that he's giving to American troops in Poland. Putin has to go. And just last Sunday, Jake Sullivan, who's the president's national security advisor, told Jonathan Karl on ABC News, what we really expect out of this is a diminished

Russian state and a diminished Russian government, whatever that means. Well, we know what it means because you put your finger on it. Are you surprised that the president made this slip? Are you surprised that Jake Sullivan, who rarely slips up on anything, said this? And are we seeing more evidence of it than we saw when you made your prediction nearly a month ago? Well, Judge, it's wishful thinking, obviously, because the regime in Moscow is not going to change. In fact, I think we're much more likely to see Putin in charge in a couple of years than we are to see Biden in charge. So it's entirely wishful thinking.

It's fantastic. If you look at the news today, the ruble is actually stronger now than it was before the Russian intervention in Ukraine and the so-called sanctions have done nothing to reduce Russia's income from the exportation of energy to Europe so on the whole I'd say yeah I'm not surprised about the regime change admission but it's utter nonsense it's fanciful it's not going to happen the great fear I have at this point is that we will insist on waging proxy war using whatever is left of the Ukrainians from Poland. And that's dangerous because that could potentially pull the Poles into this destructive mess. I just don't see anything good coming out of it because we're not prepared to step forward and say enough's enough, enough damage, enough blood's been spilled. Let's work out some sort of agreement with which everybody can live. In other words, we're not really looking for an end to the conflict.

We would prefer, I'm afraid, to see it go on perpetually, frankly, to do as much damage as possible, not just to Russia, but to everybody in Eastern Europe. It's tragic. You used the word fanciful. Is it not also fanciful for the American globalist establishment? I'll use that term to apply to Secretary of State Blinken, Security Advisor Sullivan, and their like-minded folks in the law enforcement, intelligence, military, State Department, those people, is it not fanciful for them to expect that Russia will be damaged over this? Do they really think that Putin will lose his job because public opinion is upset at seeing Russian body bags? Well, I've spent time talking to people on the ground over there to the extent that I'm able. And more interestingly, within the last few days,

I've had the opportunity to sit down and talk to some individuals who are recently returned from Russia, Ukraine, Poland. And they've all told me the same thing, that it's not just a question of Putin's approval rating, which is up in the mid 80% range. It's more than that. The recruiting stations for the Russian army are chock full. People are volunteering to fight in Ukraine. The support for him and for his policy inside Russia is overwhelming. So I think that's one reason why it's all fanciful. The other reason is very simply this. Once you move past Europe, particularly Western Europe and North America, the rest of the world is largely aligning with Russia and its strategic partner, China,

and increasingly now also India. So you're talking about the rest of the world that doesn't see the urgency under any circumstances to damage Russia. You know, it's funny you mention India, Colonel, because I've noticed that President Biden seems to be spending a lot of time with Prime Minister Modi of India as recently as yesterday. What is he offering him and what does he want from him? I don't know. I think what he'd like him to do is obviously join this anti-Russian crusade that the Biden administration wants to lead on the economic and ostensibly on every level. And I don't see that happening. India has a long-term relationship with Russia that goes all the way back to its Declaration of Independence. They have good relations. They buy each other's equipment. They buy each other's

commodities. I see no evidence that we are going to drag India into this anti-Russian coalition. By the way, we've had no success dragging India into this anti-Chinese coalition. What do you think General Mark Milley, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is saying to the president? Gosh, you know, there isn't going to be a lot of daylight between General Milley and Secretary of State Blinken, obviously. He's an ideological fellow traveler.

He's firmly in the global camp. Okay, does the military, this is almost unthinkable, but I have to ask you, does the military, the U.S. military want to get involved? In other words, is General Milley saying, hey, Mr. President, give us a couple of weeks and this will be over? Something as absurd as that? No, I don't see much evidence for that. In fact, Milley, if anything, is very concerned about not becoming involved in a direct confrontation with the Russians because he knows that we're not really prepared for it. Everyone thinks in terms of a one-off battle that you might have. But the truth is that when you engage a great power like Russia, you're signing on for

a long-term conflict that you may not win. So I think quite clearly, Milley is not arguing for that. I think he's trying to reassure the president that things are better than they are inside the military. That's pretty obvious, at least based on the statements that he and Lloyd Austin make publicly. But beyond that, no, I think he's probably advising the president, Mr. President, we just need to stay the course. I think he's probably also a supporter of this proxy war idea, the notion that we can send other people to die for us. How long could the proxy war go on? In Europe, I don't see it happening at all because I see the Germans, the Italians, all the West European powers, the skin names,

everyone is going to stand up and say, no, this is unacceptable. They don't want to live in a war zone. And even though the polls may be willing to cooperate to a point, 60% of the Polish population's electorate was polled recently, and 60% said, no, we want no conflict with Russia. So there are even limits to what the Polish government can actually do. So I think the Europeans will say, no, we're not going to live in an ever-widening war zone because of your determination to destroy Russia. How sophisticated is the Russian army? How deep?

How powerful? Well, in theoretical terms, I think they're probably the most clear-thinking people on the planet when it comes to what does or doesn't make sense militarily. And I think that their establishment, which is really designed for defense, not for offensive warfare, it's quite small. I mean, they could mobilize and put 900,000 men into the field. They haven't done that. They've kept the lid on at about 195,000 to 200,000 men into the field. They haven't done that. They've kept the lid on at about 195 to 200,000 troops. And they've moved much more effectively, I think, than we're giving them credit for. It's very hard to get hard information. And the information war being waged out of

Washington and New York City and London is just staggering. The claims that we made at the beginning that the Russians were losing, they're being driven out. I mean, all of that is obviously been nonsense. None of it is even remotely true. So I think the Russian army is quite capable of defending Russia. Now, if you're going to ask, could they launch an offensive against NATO? I would say no. They simply don't have enough forces. I don't see any evidence that they're interested in doing that either. Let's talk about the assistance that the United States is providing to Ukraine, and I want you to educate me. Is there a difference between offensive weapons and defensive weapons, or is this just a media terminology that we're suddenly beginning to hear? I think that's really largely media terminology because in the final analysis,

everything depends on the employment of the weapon system. Now, if you're talking about mobility and armored protection, these kinds of things that give you a greater edge in offensive operations, that's different. But I think for the most part, what we're talking about is how will you use what you've got? And the Ukrainian army from the very beginning was never capable of maneuvering in the field. We know, for instance, that there has not been a single counter offensive on the operational level launched by the Ukrainians. They can't do it. They don't have the wherewithal for it. So whenever we've seen the Ukrainians counterattack, and there have only been a few instances of it, it's been at the battalion level or below, local initiative, not orchestrated

from above. I think we need to understand that. That means the Russians have effectively been able to maneuver and move across eastern Ukraine with almost no interference at all. So from the very beginning, within the first two weeks, it was obvious that this could not be won by the on the sort of scale of, say, the French army or the American army. It's just not possible in that short period of time. What do you know of this new general that President Putin has appointed whose nickname is the Butcher? I guess that gives us an indication of what his reputation is like. But what do you know about his skills or ability to command troops? Is he a butcher? Well, I recollect that someone was impressed with a General Mattis that was referred to somewhere by

someone as Mad Dog. That turned out to be a misnomer. I'm not sure I'd place much value in the so-called butcher nickname. That sounds like something dreamed up in the bowels of Manhattan by some media tycoon that wants to discredit the Russians. I think he's probably an intelligent and competent man. It may be that people were dissatisfied with the conduct of operations on the strategic level. Who knows? I think it's actually a healthy sign that you can remove someone and put someone else in there in order to complete the task. We don't seem to do that. If you go back over the last 20 years, how often did we remove anyone for anything? Almost never. And if they were removed,

it was usually for paying too much attention to a young girl somewhere. So the bottom line is, I think this is a healthy sign on the Russian side. By the way, you know, they've lost several general officers killed in direct fire. That's also a very good thing that people don't realize. That's a huge morale builder because soldiers realize the general officers commanding them are at the front, that they're leading, that they're seeing for themselves what the truth is, that they're listening to what soldiers have to say. So I think all these interpretations that we're getting from the Western side about generals, for the most part, are nonsense. Will President Biden and

Antony Blinken and those folks come to recognize that sanctions don't work, that they hurt intermediaries, they hurt Americans, but they don't change the public policy of the country from Cuba in 1962 all the way up to Russia in 2022. And of course, as you and I both know, our good friend Ron Paul pointed out repeatedly, they're really an act of war. We've never taken that seriously. We behave as though this is something other than warfare. It's part of warfare. The answer is no, they can't admit those things because that's the only tool they've got left. They can't risk a military confrontation with Russia, and they won't risk that. So what else can you do?

Stand on the sidelines and carpet people and say, you're mean and nasty and we don't like you? So you try to hurt them. I just don't know how seizing an oligarch's half billion dollar yacht in the Bay of Naples or wherever it may be, in any conceivable way, by any rational argument, is intended to change President Putin's strategy. Well, remember that the oligarchs have no power. This is one of Putin's achievements. He broke the power of the oligarchs who were essentially running Russia as a fiefdom. Remember, when things fell apart, you had a small number of people who grabbed onto everything, took over the place, and sort of a collection of mafias. He destroyed that. So the oligarchs have no real influence over him. He can dispose of them as he sees fit.

So the notion that if you put pressure on the so-called evil oligarch, that he's going to demand that Mr. Putin capitulate to us is absurd. I guess it's another feel-good move. George Kennan used to say that most of what we do in foreign policy is designed to make ourselves feel good, Judge. It's not designed to achieve anything. How does this realistically end, Colonel? Well, I think you're seeing the end right now in two ways. First of all, there's less and less coverage of what's happening in Ukraine. If you turn on any of the mainstream news media, it comes up, but not as it once did, which was effectively all the time, every hour or something. Secondly, the last remaining concentration of Ukrainian forces that are

capable of resisting it all are now surrounded down in the Donbass, in the southeastern portion of the country. They have no way to escape. And it seems as though Mr. Zelensky has decided to sacrifice them. So I suspect that this 50 or 60,000 person concentration will be annihilated, unless, of course, they surrender. And by the way, the Russians have not mistreated people that surrendered. They have not shot surrendering soldiers. The Ukrainians have shot surrendering Russian troops, but the Russians have not shot surrendering Ukrainian troops. And again, this is part of this narrative. We don't have truth, Judge. We just have a narrative. And we hear this

relentless narrative of Russia is evil, Russia is corrupt, anything they say is wrong. And on the other side, there is this pristine, saintly organization known as the Ukrainian government. And whatever it says is gospel. Well, this has got to be motivated by the American intelligence community, which has a major investment and deep-rooted stake in demonizing the Russians and has since the end of World War II. Yeah, well, it certainly looks that way. You know, I'm not part of that intelligence community. I haven't been, but if you take the trouble to read what everybody has been writing about them since Alan Dulles was in charge, it certainly seems plausible that they are orchestrating quite a bit. And they have friends at MI6 in London that are equally good at it.

Colonel Doug McGregor, no matter what we talk about, it's always a pleasure. Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you, Judge. The good Colonel mentioned our mutual friend, Congressman Ron Paul, who was to have been on with us today, but a technical difficulty has delayed Congressman Paul's appearance on Judging Freedom until next Tuesday, which is April 19 at 1245 in the afternoon Eastern time. Until that time, like and subscribe. You just heard the Colonel. Thousands more will hear what he said when we post this, and you can expand that by having your friends like and subscribe for Judging Freedom, Judge Napolitano.

Thank you. Have a good day.