Judging Freedom - Col. Douglas Macgregor : The West Strikes Russian Territory

Episode Date: June 4, 2024

Col. Douglas Macgregor : The West Strikes Russian TerritorySee 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 Tuesday, June 4th, 2024. Colonel Douglas McGregor joins us today. Colonel McGregor is joining us by telephone because of traveling and other issues. Colonel, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you very much for joining us. and the West have been unambiguous in their public announcements about permission for the Ukrainian military to utilize Western offensive weaponry to land in Russia. And obviously there are Western personnel participating in this. The Russians have been unambiguous in warning the Americans and the Western Europeans of the likely consequences of this. In your view, how dangerous is this decision by President Biden and other Western leaders to allow and to announce publicly that they're allowing the use of their offensive weaponry to attack Russian facilities inside Russia? that we in the United States and our allies in Western Europe are in very grave danger

of sliding into a collision with Russia that could result in more than just a high-end conventional conflict. It could actually escalate to the nuclear level. And we have not seen anything like this, certainly since 1963, when, of course, we were infinitely better prepared and better equipped to deal with it. Today, we are not. This is a very dangerous point in the history of the United States and Western civilization. Colonel, is the mainland of the United States, am I in New Jersey or others on the east coast of the United States, in jeopardy as a result of this decision by President Biden and its likely execution by the remains whatever remains of the ukrainian military yes i think we have to assume that if we continue down this path of attacking russia that we could easily end up in the crosshairs of russian forces, those could begin with conventional weapons, but it would seem almost inevitable that if you involve Russia proper and the United States, that it could escalate to the

nuclear level very quickly. Does the West understand that it is attacking vital interests in Russia? Yes, I think they do. I just don't think they appreciate the consequences of their actions. I think they continue to live in a delusional world where we hold the initiative and all of the strategic advantages and we do not. A good example of this was the decision a few weeks ago to strike the early warning radar inside Russia that is designed to warn the Russians of an imminent nuclear attack. Now, if we were serious about maintaining our rapport with the Russians and avoiding a larger conflict, the last thing we would have done was to degrade or destroy part of their early warning system. When we did that, that suggested to the Russians that they could very well be in receipt of a

nuclear missile attack, and they would not have accurate warning depending upon the ability of other radars to pick up and cover areas that were covered by the one that was destroyed. In other words, that was the first signal to the Russians that we could escalate to the nuclear level. Whether or not that was our intention doesn't matter. That's what they think. And I think that's the problem right now. It's no longer a question of what we intend or what we signal. It's what the Russians think we are prepared to do. Why is the West suddenly, at least to me, please reject my terminology if you don't accept it, Colonel. Why is the West suddenly so desperate? We understand Joe Biden and his

fanciful wish to get reelected in six months. Why is the rest of the West going along with this? It's so risky. It's so antagonistic. It's so, I'm going to use a phrase that Foreign Minister Lavrov used, and we'll play him in just a minute. It's so, I'm going to use a phrase that Foreign Minister Lavrov used, and we'll play him in just a minute, it's so poking the bear. Well, I think you're dealing with a class of politicians, both in Western Europe as well as in the United States, who are part of a larger globalist class that sees its power in jeopardy. We have many governments in Europe that I doubt very seriously will last much longer because of the enormous damage that their governments have done to their own people. As a result,

not just of Nord Stream 2, but all of these sanctions that have backfired badly, caused higher unemployment and ruined much of the scientific industrial capacity in Europe. We have a similar situation here in the United States. We don't know what will happen in November, but we know that the current administration and the people associated with it have no chance whatsoever of retaining power. They've made a mess of the United States, they've opened our borders, they've invited serious trouble. And I get the impression that many of them think that by inviting war with Russia, a war they think they can control

and dominate, and they cannot, that this is a way for them to retain power. I think this is true in London, Paris, Berlin, and the United States and Washington. It's a very dangerous game because it's not informed, it's unrealistic, and it's likely to result in the very opposite of what they think they want to do, which is stay in power. It will probably accelerate their removal. Is the United States prepared to put troops on the ground in Ukraine to resist the Russian onslaught? And if it thinks it is prepared, what is the likely outcome of such a confrontation? Well, keep in mind that if we are going to commit our forces along with some of the forces of our

european allies and it's not a very large force at all but if we were to go into western ukraine we would undoubtedly commit u.s and allied air power to support and protect them the use of that air power is far far more important than the use of the ground forces. Let me explain why. The ground forces pose no real threat to the Russians. The Russians are not only outnumber us, but as we've discussed before, they're a battle-hardened force. They know how to fight, and they're evidently prepared to fight. We are not. You're talking about large numbers of forces that have never seen any action. And in contrast to the Russians, who have absolute unity of command and unity of effort, we do not.

And we are dealing with a polyglot group of forces that no doubt would try to do well, but would be at a severe disadvantage in that setting. When it comes to air power, that's probably our only trump card because we outnumber Russian aircraft by at least four to five to six to one, at least in the theater. Having said that, though, we would still have to deal with integrated air defenses. Overcoming them will not be easy. And that also presupposes that the Russians will sit there and allow us to commit our air power. The reason I bring that up is that we have a

large number of F-15s. If F-15s take to the air, the Russians know that they are nuclear capable. And several times in the past, President Putin and others have pointed out that the F-15 can carry nuclear weapons. That may lead the Russians to conclude, if they see large numbers of F-15s, that they are carrying nuclear weapons. That then would probably precipitate the use of tactical nuclear weapons by the Russians, potentially against airfields and locations where the F-15s are flying from. That then escalates to a new level. In other words, there are so many unknowns about what we are really going to do and what we really intend that the Russians may be inclined to take no chances. Why would you wait for F-15s to drop nuclear weapons on you

when you can launch missiles that carry tactical nuclear warheads and effectively eliminate not only logistics bases, but airfields and airports from Finland and Sweden all the way to Romania? And that could happen. Now, they could use large numbers of conventional warheads as well. But I'm just pointing out that if you're a Russian and you're looking west and you see the F-15s in great numbers, you may conclude they're carrying nuclear weapons. That's why this entire proposition of trying to rescue the Ukrainian

puppet regime in Kiev, which is dead, whose population doesn't support it, whose soldiers won't fight for it anymore, is a terrible, terrible mistake. Colonel, aside from America's hegemony, is there any moral, political, or military justification whatsoever for the U.S. and Western entry at this level, at this magnitude, at this offensiveness in the military concentration in Ukraine? No, but keep in mind that both Americans and Europeans have been treated to a steady diet of lies about the origins of this conflict. I mean, even now, if you read in Western newspapers or media, they repeat the big lie that the Russian invasion or intervention in eastern Ukraine was, quote-unquote, unprovoked. You and I and Dr. Mearsheimer and a host of others have tried to explain repeatedly that nothing could

be further from the truth. This is also something that Prime Minister Orban in Hungary has tried to explain, and other heads of state, the President of India, the president of China, and so forth. We did everything we could to goad the Russians into attacking, and they ultimately attacked because they were afraid if they didn't, they would face a very serious threat from us in eastern Ukraine. And now you have all the evidence in the world that they were absolutely right, from the biolabs to the missiles to the buildup of the Ukrainian army into a ferocious force that was designed for one thing and only one thing, to attack and kill Russians.

All you have to do is listen to members of the Senate and people in the White House tell you what a wonderful bargain this war has been because it kills Russians. Well, in truth, perhaps 50,000 Russians have been killed, but over 600,000 Ukrainians are dead as a result of this war. So this whole thing has been an utter fiasco. But to admit that it's been a fiasco is an impossibility for Washington, because then the larger lies will collapse like a house of cards. And they know, the politicians, that is, know in Western Europe and the United States, that they will not survive the collapse of those lies. addressing what Tony Blinken, his American counterpart, had revealed with respect to American weaponry being given permission to reach Russia, cut number one.

We have shown that we will not put up with this and that we will not allow Ukraine to be used as a direct threat to our security, as an instrument for the destruction of everything Russian on historical Russian lands. They did this for more than two decades, or even 30 years, immediately after the disappearance of the Soviet Union. Their goal was to destroy everything Russian, from the language to the government in this territory, which they wanted to take for themselves. And they were counting on it. But as always happens, if they wake up the Russian bear, then our people have united like never before. These are not empty words. We saw this during the Russian presidential elections.

The Nazi regime continues to use Western weapons to attack civilian targets, towns, and cities. I assure you that they will not be able to cross this line unnoticed. They will not be able to cross this line unnoticed and beware waking up the Russian bear. Could he have been any clearer, Colonel? Well, just two to three days ago, there was an attack with hypersonic missiles. I don't know if they were Kinshaws or Iskanders.

And they struck a target right outside of Lubv within a few miles of the Polish border. The target they struck killed an estimated 100 or more people of a group of 300. That included NATO officers as well as Ukrainian officers. We, of course, have not admitted to the numbers of U.S. military personnel killed on the ground in Ukraine, including at least one U.S. Army general. We've kept all of this quiet because it's part of the big lie that we're not doing what we're doing. But that target was chosen to demonstrate three things. First of all, the Russians know what's happening in Ukraine. They know where we are. They know where our allies are. They know what's left of the Ukrainians is located. Secondly,

they wanted to signal that not only did they know it, but that they could destroy it. And then finally, they used hypersonic missiles that operated 10 times the speed of sound to demonstrate conclusively that we cannot shoot any of it down. We still have large numbers of people harboring illusions about that. And even the British in a report published by RUSI in London, which hasn't been very truthful or helpful lately, did point out that right now with the air defense capabilities that we have in Europe, not just ourselves, but also the Europeans, that we can protect at most only 5% of the infrastructure committed to military use in Europe. We can't protect our own infrastructure.

The forces we have on the ground are too small, too vulnerable. And the air power we have, though very large, still has to fight its way through and will potentially signal what I've mentioned before, the potential use of nuclear weapons against the Russians. He's saying that we're not going to wait around to find out what it is that you really want to use against us. What he is saying is that if you move in these directions, we will attack you decisively, and you will be at war with Russia. I think we have to assume that that will inevitably also at some point include China. There is no incentive for anybody to sit around now and wait for the United States or its surrogates to attack them. Those days are over. Here is another statement from Foreign Minister Lavrov. It's a full screen, so we're posting it and I will read it for you. He said this last week on Thursday. We do not rule out additional steps in the sphere

of nuclear deterrence because our command centers and the locations of our nuclear forces will be in range of American forward-based missiles. How dangerous is this? Well, it's extremely dangerous. And remember that that was one of the reasons that the Russians intervened in eastern Ukraine to begin with. They were afraid that we would ultimately place missiles as well as radars and other supporting equipment in eastern Ukraine that would put us in a position to attack their nuclear deterrent capabilities on the ground in Russia within the space of a few minutes. Not just the cities in Russia, but also their nuclear deterrent. So that's not news. That's a very clear and unambiguous statement that reaffirms what I said to begin with. We're walking into a situation and potentially flying into a situation

where the Russians may reach conclusions that they have no choice but to protect themselves. And that means to employ tactical nuclear weapons against the targets that I mentioned in Eastern Europe. And then don't know what else it could lead to. But if we react by alerting our nuclear force, then you're in the game of use it or lose it. And that's something that we've done before.

In 1973, during the 73 war in Israel, or excuse me, with Egypt and Syria, when the Israelis finally broke through the Egyptian offenses, counterattacked, and crossed into Egypt proper, a decision was made by Kissinger and Schlesinger, without consulting Richard Nixon, to put our nuclear forces on an alert status that meant that they could be used quickly. The Russians at the time, and Antonov-B Brezhnev, the Soviet leader, was stunned. He said, you mean they would go to war over Egypt?

They found that incomprehensible that we would even consider such a thing. As it turned out, we then stood down. But nevertheless, the Soviets took us seriously. They moved all of their elite airborne forces into the Caucasus Mountains. They alerted their own nuclear forces and readied forces all over the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Well, we dodged that particular bullet because we demonstrated that this was an alert, and then we immediately stood down from it. This time around, I don't know what the alert status is or what the plans are, but all of the signals that we are sending at this point tell the Russians that an attack on the Russian homeland and on them by us is imminent.

That's not a good signal to send. Colonel, do the Russians have long-range missiles that could reach the United States mainland, against which we have no defenses? Oh, yes. We cannot shoot down any intercontinental ballistic missiles, and for that matter, neither can the Russians. Those are already hypersonic. That's been true for decades. We've squandered billions and billions, probably a trillion dollars or more, trying to develop effective air and missile defenses against ICBMs, but it just isn't possible. And I can't go into greater detail, but it's tougher now than it's ever been. So very definitely.

And remember that just as we have submarines in the fleet at sea, they have submarines in the Atlantic and the Pacific. They can launch weapons against us as well. From the submarines. Yes, absolutely. And I think that's one of the things that the Russians will consider very carefully. They will look at our fleet, where it's located. They know that the fleet carries nuclear weapons. And you could see a major collision erupt at sea. but they'll use a lot of land-based missiles and capabilities against us. Remember, this is a large fortress that we call Russia, and there's an old adage, a ship's a fool to fight a fort. If our fleet is in range, they'll probably be sunk.

This is not an advantageous position to be in. Now, the fleet, I'm sure, will try to stay out of range, but that's going to be very difficult. You know, the Russians can attack every target of importance to them in Europe, from Portugal to Norway, with the Kinshaw cruise missiles. And that's a devastating potential that we cannot stop. We could see something similar happen to us here at home. The bottom line is this is dangerous, it's ill-advised, and for the first time in our history, we could be dragged into a war that nobody in the United States wants except the fools in Washington.

And I don't see any evidence that the vast majority of Europeans want to march to war against Russia. But the political figures supported by the compliant media have lied to the American people and Europeans for almost three, four years now about the imminent danger of Russia, how Russia is evil, and Russia must be destroyed. That's the problem. And you would think at this point,

large numbers of Americans and Europeans would have learned just how routinely the media passes on lies to us that are simply untrue and dangerous, but it doesn't appear to be the case. There's still lots of people who believe that nonsense. Lots of people who believe that we should hate Russia, hate Russians, despise President Putin, and use whatever means available to drive him from office. As far as you understand, is it still true that there is zero diplomacy between the United States and Russia? Nobody talks to anybody in the higher echelons of the State Department and the Russian foreign ministry? Well, I don't know that there are not back channels through the intelligence community, very secretive and very secure, that would allow someone like Ambassador Burns to talk directly to someone

in Moscow. The problem is that the Russians have been lied to so frequently by us. And you recall the admission that the Minsk Accords, which was designed to address these inequalities before the law for the Russians living in eastern Ukraine and to effectively ease tensions and demilitarize the conflict was really a ruse just to buy time to build up the Ukrainian army that much further for attacking Russia. The Russians have been lied to too many times, and I'm not sure that they believe very much of what we say privately, let alone what we say publicly. However, they do look at what we're doing with the forces. The Russians pay less attention to what is said than they do to the intention that is signaled by the way we are organized, structured, and prepared to fight.

Got it. And we are very focused in our orientation right now. And that offensive orientation could precipitate the war that we don't want, don't need, and should avoid. Colonel, I want to ask you before we go one or two questions about, excuse me, the latest in Israel. But before we do, I would like to play President Putin's warning to NATO of May 28, just a few days ago, and ask for your comments on it. There's an English translation. Representatives of NATO countries, especially in Europe, especially in small countries, they should be aware of what they are playing with before talking about striking Russian territory.

In general, this constant escalation can lead to serious consequences. On top of that, you and I both saw a clip over the weekend, I believe it was by a Russian academic, saying that if the Russians wanted to, they could wipe out Poland and the Polish people in about 30 minutes. Your thoughts? Well, President Putin is talking specifically about Finland, the Baltic states, yes, Poland, and probably Romania. Those are the launching pads for U.S. aircraft,

launching pads for potential missile strikes. And he's just telling them that if you participate in this and you support this and you provide the Americans with their access to launch these attacks against us, you risk being annihilated. That's very simple. And this is not a threat. This is a promise. Colonel, recently there have been two series of events in Israel. One got a lot more attention than the other. The first is President Biden's insistence that he is offering a peace proposal, which he says was generated by the Israelis.

And there's obviously some dispute in Israel about this. Itamar Ben-Gavir says if Benjamin Netanyahu goes along with this, his people will leave the government, thereby collapsing it. The second is serious Israeli attacks on southern Lebanon and the movement of American B-52s in the area, which has gotten no coverage over here. Let's start with the first, Joe Biden's insistence that his peace proposal, blessed by him, originated with or was approved by the Israelis. Do you think this is likely to wash, or is this just a domestic political stunt? I think it's the latter. It's for domestic consumption. The Israelis, and I'm talking now about Mr. Netanyahu and his government, and they still enjoy 80-plus percent support from the Israeli population, which Americans need to understand, as well as obviously support from the lobby here inside the United States, is determined to escalate.

There's no interest in reaching any sort of solution. The notion of anything that might lead to a two-state solution is off the table. So that's, I would simply dismiss it as a smokescreen, because it's very obvious at this point to address the second issue, that the Israelis are preparing to attack southern Lebanon. And remember, the war over in Gaza is not over. The conflict with the Arabs on the West Bank is not over. The Egyptians are preparing to fight. I think the Jordanians are trying to figure out what they can do to stay out of everything and survive, but that seems unlikely. But southern Lebanon, in particular, where Hezbollah is located, is the principal threat to the Israelis,

and they've decided that they want to eliminate it. The only way to eliminate Hezbollah is to annihilate it. And that's why I think we've moved B-52s into the eastern Mediterranean region, because from very high altitude, they could bomb very precisely with any number of different kinds of bombs, from 500 pounds to 2,000 pounds, and they can launch cruise missiles, they can do an enormous amount of damage. And it would be necessary to do that if the Israelis are to have any chance at all of defeating Hezbollah, because Hezbollah is just that well-prepared, organized, and equipped.

So I think this is the spreading of the war away from Gaza and now to the wider region, because the Israelis know that if that occurs, it's only a matter of time until Iran feels compelled to support its co-religionists, Shiite Arabs in southern Lebanon. Then the real question is what happens elsewhere in the region. As I've mentioned before, Turkey is a boiling cauldron right now of anger and frustration. And the Turks are enormously powerful militarily, and the population is very frustrated with Erdogan's failure to engage. This may be something that tips the scales

in that particular direction too. We don't know. And that's the problem. Once you launch these kinds of actions, these kinds of operations, you may think you can contain them. You may think you can manage it. How many times have people gone to war

on the assumption that the war would be short and decisive? How many times have they warred the belief that no one else would enter? I mean, this was the mentality of the Austrian emperor in 1914. And he thought that he could fight his little war without interference. He could not believe that the Russians would mobilize and intervene to support little Serbia. He was wrong. The Germans were wrong. And then the French engaged in the full knowledge that this was their best shot at getting what they wanted. And then the final straw was Britain, which the Germans frankly did not believe because they had good relations with Britain over many centuries, and they had never fought an

English-speaking soldier that such a thing would happen. My point is that you have a similar set of circumstances in the Middle East today, and you have a similar set of circumstances in Eastern Europe. We should not assume under any circumstances that China, Iran, and others will simply sit there and do nothing. And I would also point out, I can't say with absolute certainty, but the Pakistanis and the Turks have always had a close relationship, and they have promised the Turks assistance with nuclear warheads. I would not be surprised if that agreement was finally reached and the Turks would have nuclear weapons at their disposal, the reason being that they want to make sure that the Israelis know that if the Israelis

are thinking about using a nuclear weapon against them, that a nuclear weapon could be used against Israel. Not wanting to bring us back to where we started, but I must ask you this. Is there not an alliance between Iran and Russia? And might Putin even be brought into this Middle Eastern conflagration? Well, I think part of the reason that we are pressing as hard as we are is to prevent the Russians from intervening decisively to assist or support Iran or Syria.

I think that's quite clear. If we can tie down Russian interests, even if it leads to a nuclear war between the United States and Russia, which strikes me as being insane, then Israel may not have to worry about direct intervention by Iran in support of Israel. Look, there are no alliances in the sense that we had them in 1914. There are no immediate triggers. There are relations. Relations between all of these various nations that we're talking about have always been prickly.

There is not perfect love and harmony between Iran and Russia. There's not perfect love and harmony, for instance, between us and Turkey and so on. The leaders in states will make decisions on the basis of what they think is in the interest of their countries and their peoples. I think the key right now is to understand that we are sending signals that would lead any number of potential opponents, not the least of which is Russia, to decide that they must strike or risk destruction by us. That's a bad situation to be in. Colonel Douglas McGregor, I know you're traveling today. Thank you very much for taking the time to speak with us.

This is, to say the least, profound and terrifying. It is also courageous and insightful. And only you could have delivered this with this excellence and understanding. Thank you, Colonel. All the best. Thanks, George. Bye-bye. We'll see you, Colonel. All the best. Thanks, George. Bye-bye. We'll see you next week. I don't remember who said it,

but this is a follow-up to what the Colonel said. It may have been Churchill. There are no lasting friendships. There are no lasting enmities. There are only lasting interests. We have a lot of interesting guests coming up the rest of today at 11 o'clock Eastern, Professor Sachs. At 12 noon Eastern, Scott Ritter. What did the State Department do to him at JFK Airport yesterday?

At 2 o'clock Eastern, Matt Ho. At 3 o'clock Eastern, Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski. At 4 o'clock Eastern, Ray McGovern. A busy day. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.