Judging Freedom - Col. Douglas Macgregor: Shakeup in Russian National Security

Episode Date: May 13, 2024

Col. Douglas Macgregor: Shakeup in Russian National SecuritySee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, May 13th, 2024. Colonel Douglas McGregor is here with us on is there any significance to President Biden's hold on sending 2,000-pound bombs to Israel? And is there any significance to President Putin's musical chairs in his cabinet? But first this. You all know that I am a paid spokesperson for Lear Capital, but I'm also a customer, a very satisfied customer. About a year ago, I bought gold and it's now increased in value 23%. So $100 invested in gold a year ago is now worth $123. If you have $100 in the bank, it still shows $100, but you can only buy $76 worth of goods with it.

Why is that? Inflation has reduced all of your savings, all of your buying power and mine by 24%. And gold is largely immune from that. Gold keeps its value and goes up. If you want to learn how gold will soon hit $3,200 an ounce, call Lear Capital. 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com. Get your free gold report. Same experts who predicted the 23% rise that I've enjoyed have predicted this $3,200 an ounce gold. Learn about how to transfer this to an IRA. Protect your savings. 800-511-4620, Learjudgenap.com.

Tell them the judge sent you. Colonel McGregor, it's a pleasure, my dear friend. Welcome back to the show. What is your take on President Biden's so-called hold on the 2,000-pound bombs and the 2,500-pound bombs to the Israeli government while the U.S. continues to send all sorts of other military equipment and ammunition there. Is it just a slow walk? Is it for political purposes with an eye on Michigan? Or is there a serious divide between Israel and the United States over its execution of the war in Gaza? I think it's a combination of things. I think President Biden is being pushed by public opinion in a direction that is not favorable to Israel.

Lots of Americans, not just Arab Americans, including large numbers of Jewish Americans and simply people that take the trouble to do more than watch cable news have concluded that this is wrong, that this is morally reprehensible, and it ought to stop. So that results in undeniable pressure on President Biden. At the same time, you know, Mr. Netanyahu's behavior has signaled pretty conclusively to Biden that he has no choice. There's almost no chance of this conflict ending before the election unless President Biden intervenes somehow or another to stop it. And that has begun with this embargo on what are really heavy bombs, large 500 pounds and above that we know can do enormous damage. If they're precision guided, obviously it's better,

but in an urban environment, almost any large munition is going to result in collateral damage. So it's more of a gesture than anything else, but it's the beginning, I think, of a movement away from Israel and its policies in the region. Prime Minister Netanyahu over the weekend told an Israeli news outlet when he was asked how long the war could take, he said he thought it could take 10 years.

Is that realistic or is that how long he wants to stay in power? Well, the power question I can't answer. I'm sure he'd be happy to be appointed for life. But I don't think it's a matter of can it last that long. I think it's more along the lines of signaling to everyone that he's not going to stop until he's comfortable that he's achieved his goals and aims. And I still don't think anyone has been straightforward about those aims. This has nothing to do with what happened on 7 October. 7 October was horrific, although again, lots of people like me question just how it occurred

and how it came about because of the extraordinarily good surveillance and security that is normally around Gaza. One wonders why they put this music festival in such close proximity to a place that was clearly not reinforced with Israeli defense forces. They had a minimum of ready deployable forces in the region. Why would you do that? So I think there are lots of questions that have to be answered on that score. I simply think that what happened on 7 October was used to justify something that the Israelis have wanted to do for years, which is to complete what they started in 48 and what continued to some extent in 56 and later on in the 60s, which is to completely rid itself or rid Israel of its Arabs. That's what

this is about. I don't understand why nobody will simply step forward and admit that. I guess if you do, then you have to admit that what is happening is mass murder and expulsion. And people who are friends of Israel don't want to say that. Well, I was always a friend of Israel too, but I'm willing to say it because that's the only way I can characterize it. Well, Colonel, you have an international reputation for intellectual honesty. You're not a politician. You're a retired senior military person who appears on these programs to analyze things. Most people do not have that level of integrity. But, I mean, is it realistic that the Israelis can achieve their goal,

the elimination of Hamas, the elimination of Hezbollah, and from the river to the sea? Well, that depends less on us and more on the people that live in the region. Again, and I've said this before, you have this axis of resistance, as it's called, that includes very well-armed and disciplined militias in Iraq, Hezbollah, obviously, as well as the Houthis. But these are absolutely, without question, not enough. These are not going to be enough to destroy the threat

that Israel now presents to Islam and the people of Islam that live in the Middle East, or for that matter, anybody that stands in their way. So I think the question has to be submitted to General Sisi in Egypt, to King Abdullah in Jordan, to the Saudis, to the Emirates, to the Turks and Mr. Erdogan, as well as to Iran. Those are the major powers. Those are the principal actors. What are they going to do? Right now in Egypt, there are people that actually believe the International Court of Justice has real influence and power you and i both know they have no power and so there are many egyptians that are saying well at last we see movement no there's no movement and the egyptians are the ones with a force that may not be the best force in the region

but it's numerous enough large enough that it could do an enormous damage if it chose to do so, and thus far the Egyptians have sat on their haunches. The same thing is true in Jordan and the Arabian states. The question is, what will the Turks do? They're historically the leaders of Sunni Islam. They still see themselves in those terms. What are they doing? I don't know. Does the axis of resistance have a central control or command? Is it coordinated? I think there's a certain amount of harmonization that goes on. I think it would be a stretch to suggest that there is any one person or one body anywhere in the region that controls everything. I know that's something the Israelis like to impute to the government in Tehran, but I'm not sure that's justified. I think that they communicate

with each other. They try to orchestrate their actions to the extent that they're able, but beyond that, no. Again, this is the issue. Where is the leadership? I mean, it's sort of, imagine landing at Normandy in France in 1944, and no one's in charge. You have British armies, Canadian armies, American armies, French, Poles, and others who are with you, not going to get very far. And I think that's a good description right now of what confronts Israel. The people that could really influence things, that could have real strategic leverage and power, have done nothing. Senator Lindsey Graham, arguably the most bellicose member of the United States Congress. Got in sort of a hissy fit on Meet the Press over the weekend, saying that if Harry Truman, an absurd analogy, but this is what he said, you'll hear him in a second, can drop bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,

why can't Bibi Netanyahu destroy everybody in Gaza? But before you respond, here he is. Cut number nine, Chris. Historians would say, why is it okay for Reagan to do it and not President Biden? But let me ask you about the big deal. Well, can I say this? Why is it OK for America to not to to drop two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end their existential threat war? Why was it OK for us to do that? I thought it was OK to Israel. Do whatever you have to do to survive as a Jewish state. Again, military officials say every technology has changed. But let me ask you about how these military officials that you're talking about. let me ask you about how yeah these military officials that

you're talking about let me ask you something crap i don't know if he was talking about you if he was it's a badge of courage but this is the type of argument that is made by members of the united states congress we'll play a few more for you in a moment. Well, in defense of Lindsey Graham, let me say this. We Americans have a very misguided view of conducting war and especially of ending war. We have treated whatever wars that we participated in as all or nothing propositions. Now, thankfully, during the First World War, we were a participant, but we were not really in charge of how that war was conducted. So that ended differently from the way in which I think we Americans would like to have ended it. Every American thinks in terms of what happened during the Civil War. Now, they don't look

carefully at the details. They look at Grant's famous unconditional surrender demand, and they fail to realize that when surrender was ultimately offered by Grant, it was eminently reasonable, which is one of the reasons that Robert E. Lee not only took it, but then worked for the rest of his life to uphold it. But we don't see it that way. And we take World War II as another example. Well, we annihilated Japan. We annihilated at least Germany from the air. The Soviets took care of the rest of the problem on the ground. That's not the way to end a war. You want to end a war in a way that produces a settlement that has a chance of surviving, and surviving in the sense that everyone can live with it, including the losers. No, we haven't taken that position ever

in the 20th century. We've always taken a position when everyone is dead and no one resists and everything's destroyed, we win. Well, you're hearing that in the voice of Lindsey Graham. And of course, that's music to the ears of someone like Netanyahu, because that's exactly what he wants to do in Gaza. But Netanyahu, much like Graham, is forgetting that what he can get away with today in Gaza will not be forgotten tomorrow in the rest of the world, particularly inside the Islamic world. So betting that everyone will sit around like a toad on the road and do nothing is not a very stable bet, in my judgment, for Mr. Netanyahu, just as I don't think it was a good idea for us to have used those nuclear weapons against the Japanese. I think we could have ended

the war much earlier than we did had we been willing to talk to the Japanese. But again, if you treat every opponent as someone who is morally reprehensible and unworthy of your approach, then you end up with these wars of annihilation. I just hope nobody turns around and wages one against us. Great analogy, Colonel. Transitioning to Russia and Ukraine, Is there a backstory to the resignation, reassignment, removal, whatever the case is, to General Shoigu, the defense minister for whom you and others on this show have had respect as a military tactician? Well, I don't think Shoigu, strictly speaking, judges a military man. He is not a lifelong soldier or professional soldier.

He was the Minister of Defense. It's just that in Russia and many other countries, the Ministers of Defense wear uniforms, just as during World War II, as Minister of Defense or Minister of War and Minister of the Navy and so forth, Winston Churchill ran around in a uniform. But these are civilians, and he is a civilian. And some people actually blame him for some things that did not go well at the beginning. And that's a matter for discussion. I know he was certainly chastised for his failure to handle the bit of a rebellion that took place. And, you know, that's neither here nor there. He still enjoys the trust and confidence of President Putin, ultimately. I also know that Shoigu wanted to retire a couple of years ago and was actually asked to stay on. And I think he stayed on as long as Putin thought it was necessary. I think Putin sees this war in its end phase. Now, he's not

waging a war of annihilation against Ukraine, much to his credit, as we've discussed previously. So he's looking for an end of this war, and he's decided that it's time to refocus attention. One way to do that is with a new minister who is preeminently an economist. Because one of the things that Mr. Putin and others found out about the Russian military establishment and its supporting industries is that it needed a lot of work, particularly in terms of preparation, organization to fight effectively, and logistics, and sustainment. I think this is the real reason, because I think Putin now has great confidence in the generals that are commanding the forces in the field. That doesn't need anyone's particular attention at this point.

They're doing a very solid job, and I think the Russian general staff is doing a good job. So for his purposes, this is opening a new chapter in the history of the Soviet armed force, excuse me, Russian armed forces in the Russian state. We're going to refocus our attention on preparations for the future and on the economic sense. And that's probably a good thing, frankly. What will NATO do when the Ukraine military has collapsed? Well, I think we can bet right now the answer to that is about nothing. I think Washington was very, very taken aback by the belligerent stance taken by Mr. Putin when he deployed those tactical nuclear weapons to the front and made it clear,

if you're considering intervention in Western Ukraine, think again. You will be at war with Russia, and we are prepared for that fight. Well, we are obviously not prepared for that fight, and NATO is not prepared for that fight. And the analogy of Normandy that I gave you earlier would be exactly accurate in terms of its application to NATO today. It would be a gaggle, a gaggle of armies and air forces and some naval forces struggling to cooperate and fight against an enemy that has absolute unity of command and as a result, absolute unity of effort. We have nothing like it. So I think the answer is we're not going to do anything. We're going to

stand back. We're going to wait for this tragedy to unfold. I don't even think that the CIA or MI6 are necessarily going to intervene to remove Zelensky. I suspect that that's going to happen internally by other people before long. That was my next question, which I'll frame this way. Would there have to be regime change in Kyiv before there can be negotiations between Ukraine and Russia? I would think so. Well, at the very least, Mr. Zelensky and those who are his confidants will have to go away. Now, whether they go peacefully or they end up, you know, being stood up against the wall and shot or poisoned or something else is anybody's guess. Maybe they'll be allowed to get in an aircraft and and fly off to cyprus or somewhere but i think uh

the rest of it uh that's another matter i think the russians have actually expected a military leadership revolt to take over and put an end to the slaughter and the pointlessness of the fighting. I think that's in part why the Russians are still moving deliberately and cautiously. They are advancing across the front. And yes, they have concentrated 100,000 troops to the north to deal with Kharkov. But I think they would prefer a negotiated settlement. And they're hoping, and I suspect they may well be talking to some people behind the scenes to try and affect that. This is the Russian military literally walking into villages from which civilians have fled and for which there was no defense whatsoever offered by Ukrainian military. This was reported by Ukrainian troops as well.

What are President Putin's military objectives, aside from the grand objective of the neutrality of Ukraine? For example, does the Russian military control all of the areas east of its front lines, or are there still rogue areas in there, rogue from the Russian perspective, still under control of the Ukrainian government? Well, I think it's less an issue of rogue and more an issue of where there are true Ukrainians. If you look at the areas where the Russians are now, those areas are largely Russian in content, in terms of people, culture, language, history. As you move closer to the Dnipro River, you do now encounter pockets of people who are truly Ukrainian. That's all the way up and down the Dnipro, what they called the Dnipro, all the way up to Kiev. Both sides or just the west of the river? No, no, on the east side.

I mean, these are not heavy concentrations, but in the back of his mind, remember, he really doesn't want to rule Ukrainians. This is what nobody gets. Everybody says, oh, well, he wants to conquer Ukraine. Forget it. He doesn't want anything to do with it. This is a man who's read Solzhenitsyn very carefully. And on the whole, he's very much a disciple of Solzhenitsyn. And Solzhenitsyn always urged the Russians to leave places where the people were not Russian. Now, Solzhenitsyn did regard the Ukrainians as a related people, a brother nation, if you will. And I think Putin does too, but he's not a fool. So I don't think there's any interest in doing anything west of the Dnieper River except Odessa. And as far as the rest of his concern, I think he's going to continue to advance. And if there is no movement in Kiev, he will close that gap and

everything east of the river will be Russian. And that serves his purpose, which is to have a neutral zone on the other side, essentially a demilitarized zone. We could have had that, as you know, back in at the end of March and beginning of April with less loss of territory to Ukraine. But that's another story. You're talking about March and April two years ago. Yeah, two years ago. Excuse me. Right, right, right. What happens if NATO puts forces east of the Dnepr River?

Do you mean east or west? You're talking about going to western Ukraine? Yeah. Well, they're going to be at war with Russia. Russia will move decisively to crush them. And Mr. Putin has already made it very clear that the bases that support those troops, whether these are logistical hubs, missile and rocket batteries, air defense forces, airfields, aircraft, whatever they are, they will be targeted and destroyed. And

that means that everybody on Russia's periphery that supports the projection of NATO military power into Western Ukraine will be attacked. And I think it's been made very clear and private by everybody in NATO that they're not interested in that. They don't want to go to war with Russia. They don't want to be attacked. And I think, you know, that's the last thing in the world that President Biden wants for reasons that you're familiar with. We've got an election coming up. What could be worse than a major war? He's already viewed through this lens of failure in foreign policy. He failed in the execution of the Afghan withdrawal. That was a debacle. Could have been handled radically differently.

Every mistake you could make, timing, location, everything was made. Now he faces something similar in Ukraine and potentially also in Israel, because no one knows what could conceivably suddenly occur in the Middle East to completely change the calculus. He thinks he's calmed things down with Iran. Well, for the moment, perhaps, but there's no guarantee there. And there's no guarantee of what will happen in Egypt or Turkey. So I think he wants an end to this thing in Ukraine, but he doesn't know how to do it. Because in order to get an ending, he's got to admit the failure publicly. And, you know, everybody in Washington never admits failure.

You have little people like Leslie Graham that will say, well, you failed. You failed. You only know what you've done. It's absurd. But we went through this at the end of Vietnam, you know. And remember who lost China in the 50s? Right. Well, China never belonged to us.

Vietnam never belonged to us. And Ukraine doesn't belonged to us vietnam never belonged to us and ukraine doesn't belong it's the same it's the same mentality uh colonel that dominates the leadership of the state department the west wing and the leadership of the defense department the same mentality it almost doesn't matter who the president is here's the official united states position on all of this i'm chuckling because you'll see how absurd it is. Admiral Kirby on Russian threats, cut number one, Chris. There's been threats from Moscow in the last couple of days of striking British military facilities and also simulating nuclear drills

as it sharply rises tensions because of weapons manufactured in the UK being used in the conflict that says it could potentially apply to other allied countries as well, theoretically the United States. Do you have a response to that? Well, what I'd say, number one, is it's just reckless and irresponsible for the leader of a major nuclear-armed power to be saber-rattling the way that he is with respect to the potential use for nuclear weapons. Obviously, we monitor this and have continued to monitor this very closely.

I can tell you we've seen nothing, even despite the reckless rhetoric that would cause us to change our strategic deterrent posture. And look, lastly, if Mr. Putin and Russian officials are worried about their troops in Ukraine getting hit with weapons from other countries, then the easiest thing to do is just take your troops and leave. That is really absurd. Take your troops and leave. What planet is he on? It is reckless and irresponsible for the president of the United States, the leader of NATO, to treat Russian national security interests with complete contempt and disinterest. That's number one. And we've been doing that, I would argue, for at least 20 years. Number two, his troops aren't going anywhere, but ours might.

And I think that's what no one in Washington wants to admit. We're very close to the potential for people in Europe to say, you know, look, we've had it with this. We didn't sign on for a war with Russia. Your recklessness could lead to just such an outcome. So we think you probably ought to get out of here. Now, I think that could happen in Poland, even though the Poles have been very, very solicitous to us. I think they've begun to think carefully about where they stand on the front lines. I know the Germans are wondering about the wisdom of having them. I know the Finns are reconsidering.

I think the Swedish electorate is beginning to have concerns about our readiness to put nuclear weapons on Swedish and Finnish soil. You know, an act that, in my judgment, is complete insanity. But this is the sort of stupidity we've engaged in. So, you know, I think NATO is falling apart internally, behind the scenes. It's very fractious. But we don't see that. Everyone is maintaining the facade. But's very fractious. But we don't see that. Everyone is

maintaining the facade. But the facade is going to crumble. Will NATO give up on its goal of Ukrainian membership? Of course. But NATO itself will go away. That's the problem. Since they decided to make this fight in eastern Ukraine as an existential question for NATO, That's the problem. stupidity that we are now pursuing in Scandinavia, put a nuclear weapon right on Russia's borders within easy range of Russian cities and the Russian nuclear deterrent. So from their standpoint, they've acted as one would have expected and as many people predicted, including George Kennan and others, and Ambassador Burns, who said that if you persist in this, you'll end up at war with Russia. We, on the other hand, turned this thing into an existential question for NATO. Either we win in Ukraine, this was the argument, or we're finished.

Well, guess what? You're going to get what you wanted. You're finished. NATO may not be dead yet, but it's certainly on life support. I just want to go back to Israel for a minute. I promised I would run this and I forgot and we moved on to Russia. This is a montage of American members of Congress, including Senator Graham, unfortunately, expressing their opinions on President Biden's hold up on the 2,000 pound and 2,500 pound bombs going to Israel. Again, this is produced by Politico. Cut number two. This idea of withholding weapons to Israel as a condition of somehow, you know, Joe Biden wanted to micromanage their their war effort over there, their defensive effort, is catastrophic policy.

In my view, Netanyahu should not have gotten a nickel so long as he continued this incredibly destructive war. I'm glad to see that the president is beginning, beginning to move in that direction. Withholding weapons makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to get American hostages back and Israeli hostages back, because you're incentivizing bad behavior. I don't agree with the president. It demonstrates to Hamas that they're winning the PR war. You can't go after 10, 20, or a brigade of Hamas

and kill thousands of innocent people. There's got to be a better way of doing it. And I think that's simply what the president of the United States is saying. They're more concerned about their pro-Hamas wing of the Democrat Party, which we're seeing is part of the radicalized left. I think the president has taken exactly the correct action, something that many of us have been calling for for weeks.

He's made it clear that Netanyahu cannot continue to blatantly defy the United States president, Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State. I don't know. Do you think the students at Columbia and the University of Michigan or wherever else they may have been, I think they're all gone now because of graduations, had an influence on Joe Biden? Do you think they influenced members of Congress? These are just two warring camps, lowercase w and warring, in the Congress digging their heels in. Yes, I think the demonstrators actually had an impact.

And I often recall what you and I can remember, at least I know I can. You may not be as old as I am, but I remember what happened during the Vietnam War with great clarity. And at the time, I was a teenager and frankly, somewhat confused because in my own household, people were divided. And my mother kept saying, well, we have to support the war. We have to support the troops. And my grandfather had been in World War I, would say over and over again, if you support the troops, bring them home. So you had two different generations with two different views. So I guess to some extent, you're seeing that here. Now, Bernie Sanders expressed the right sentiment. And I think Bernie knows, if I may use his first name, that this is not about

Hamas. That's the thing that everyone is missing. This is a war for Jewish supremacy in the Middle East, period. That's what Mr. Netanyahu wants, and that's what his population wants him to pursue. Now, how do you do that? Well, first of all, you expel the Muslim Arabs on your territory, or Christian Arabs if they happen to be Christians. You just expel them. You push them out once and for all and create a Jewish pure state. And then you turn eventually against Hezbollah, that is the one so-called militia that presents very real danger to Israel. That's what we're about. That's what they're talking about. And that's what the other senators are supporting. Now, why are they doing that? You know, is it because they had this deep abiding

love for Israel? I don't think so. I think it has a lot to do with money. And if you go to the various think tanks in Washington, D.C., you would just look at who the donors are. Where did all the money come from? Where does all the money come from that persuades senators from states where very few people have any interest whatsoever at what goes on beyond our borders to so vigorously support what the Israelis are doing. Again, it's one thing to say, look, and I believe this, and I've always believed this, Israel can play a very positive role in the world, and I think it has. I think it's an unusual concentration of human capital and talent.

And the world, and especially the Middle East, can benefit from it. But that's not what's going on today. What's going on is something very different, as we've described it. And I don't think the senators care about any of it. I think they're preeminently concerned about where the money goes. I hate to be blunt about that. I know that's cynical, but that's my view. Whereas I think at least Ro Khanna, although I disagree with him, I think Bernie Sanders is correct. From the very beginning, this should not have been funded, but at least he's come on board and recognizes this should not be funded. But they're almost insignificant compared with the rest of the world. You have over 140 nations that have effectively walked away from Israel and, by implication, away from us. We in Israel are increasingly isolated in the world, Judge.

Thank you, Colonel. Colonel, you put your finger right on it. You know, you and I have a close mutual friend in the House of Representatives who has received money from AIPAC, but since he voted against the Congress defining anti-Semitism and voted against the additional aid to Israel and Ukraine, he's been stripped from that, along with about 15 or 20 other Republicans, mostly libertarian. He's been stripped from that website. Now, you know, Judge, there is one other aspect to this thing that has to be mentioned. There are many people in Washington that regard Israel as an extension of our global military

hegemony. Now, I regard that as utterly delusional. I'm talking about global military hegemony. Anybody who thinks they can dominate the world in military power or economic power anything else is uh delusional but we have a lot of them inside the Beltway they very much feel that way you know historically and I think this is something that Professor Mearsheimer's pointed out we we have almost from our inception as a country being the dominant power in our own hemisphere. And that was enough. But since the Second World War, we have been striving for this position of global hegemony.

And a lot of people think that Israel is at least partially our instrument. I do not. Nor do I think anybody beyond the borders of the United States is necessarily our instrument. But that's a popular view. And unfortunately, many of the people that think that way have the power to take money out of our pockets called taxes or borrow money in our name called inflation and send it over there. Absolutely. Exactly what we have witnessed. Colonel, thank you for your extraordinary analysis of all this. You analyze so clearly both issues as they stand today, as we understand them. I'll see you again next week. All the best to you, Thank you. Coming up tomorrow, we have our usual Tuesday, which is Matt Ho at 2 o'clock, Karen Kwiatkowski at 3 o'clock, and at 4.30, the inimitable Scott Ritter. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. MUSIC