Judging Freedom - Col. Douglas Macgregor: Ukraine: What Happens Now?

Episode Date: April 22, 2024

Col. Douglas Macgregor: Ukraine: What Happens Now?See 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, April 22nd, 2024. Colonel Douglas McGregor joins us now. Colonel, thank you very much for your time. Colonel, over the weekend, the Congress of the United States voted to send $61 billion to Ukraine, $20 billion, which is $11 billion more than had been advertised to the Israelis, $5 billion to the Taiwanese. And they made it easier for America's spy agencies to spy on ordinary Americans without suspicion and without warrants. Does anybody care about the Constitution anymore? Judge, I don't think they do. I think we live in a post-constitutional society, sadly. You, what is your view of the danger or recklessness of this 61 billion for Ukraine, recognizing as we do that the lion's share of it stays here and goes directly into American industry?

Judge, I think to a large extent, you've answered your own question. There are two things that work here one is obviously the domestic angle essentially transferring cash from the government to uh the supporters of the people the donors to the campaigns of the people that voted for the uh legislation you know effectively standing up and waving the Ukrainian flag is a signal that I got your message, received your re-election campaign contribution, much appreciated. That's about it. As far as Ukraine is concerned, whatever shows up to Ukraine, as Ambassador Burns and the CIA pointed out some time ago, most of it will disappear into bank accounts around the world

for Mr. Zelensky and his little band of men who have been robbing the place blind since they came into power yeah I imagine some of it will go to pay what's left of the Ukrainian Army which isn't very much and to sustain what's left of the administration this I think the hope is that somehow or another this will conceal the complete and utter destruction of the Ukrainian nation, which is already well underway and sadly is going to continue through the summer. Let me show you a visual example of how misguided the Congress is, how childlike and how absurd it can be. This is the moment on the floor of the House of Representatives when the vote was tallied and the person in the Speaker's chair, who's not the Speaker,

it's just whoever was chosen to preside at that moment, declared that the legislation had passed. I'm sure you'll be able to see what's in the hands of many members of Congress, which, of course, is a violation of federal law. I missed it, but thank you. Okay. The House will be in order. The House will be in order. The chair would remind my colleagues to observe proper decorum. Flag waving on the

floor is not appropriate. The house will be in order. Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida rise? I said, the gentlewoman from Florida. Oh, stand up. Put a good stand for our flag. The gentlewoman does not recognize colleagues. No, I'm going to. The House will be in order. That was a Republican congresswoman from Florida who voted against the legislation, expressing her anger and fury at the childishness of these Republicans.

There were some Democrats who did it as well, waving Ukrainian flags on the floor. Do these people have any idea? How would you know? But do you think they have any idea of the harm they're causing by this? Probably not, but I'm also convinced that they're not terribly concerned one way or the other. Yes, you're right. I think everybody thinks in this country in terms of the private sector, what's our return on our investment at the end of the quarter. Nobody's thinking much beyond that. And right now, you know, I've made it possible for me to receive more money for re-election.

And I'm supporting a cause that everybody around me tells me is a good thing. I don't care about the facts and I'm not concerned about the strategic impact of what I'm doing. This is not new. This has always been true in the House. It was less so in the Senate for much of our history, but unfortunately, I don't see a great deal of difference now. But this is a catastrophe that is clearly and unambiguously the fault of the current government. I hope Americans are watching, but then again, I don't know that they are. I mean, why would we send money to Taiwan? And given the fact that you have all of the international community, as well as

millions of Americans who are questioning the wisdom of underwriting Israel's policy of mass murder and expulsion in Gaza, and are beginning to worry finally about the potential for a war in that region to blow up and include the use of nuclear weapons, they may well ask, why are we sending even more cash now? Why are we not reining the Israelis in? Is this a good thing for America? And I think the answer is obvious. It's not a good thing for America. Colonel, there was no serious debate about any of this. It was just a vote, maybe a few statements here and a few statements there by the chairs of she must have taped this before the vote, if the chance of victory goes up if Congress authorizes the weapons that he expects to get. I think this support will really strengthen the armed forces of Ukraine. And we will have a chance for victory if Ukraine really gets the weapons system,

which we need so much. Thousands of soldiers need so much. Isn't victory impossible for Ukraine at this point without the miraculous appearance of an army of a million men? There's no chance at all. He hasn't got the personnel, in other words, the people that are trained and armed to do anything. And he can deliver more arms and he still lacks the human capital. Right now, estimates are that 600,000 Ukrainians have been killed in this war. I'm talking about soldiers. And again, you know,

you lose the majority of your force when you're in full retreat, when things collapse. That's when you take most of your casualties. You don't take them when you have an organized structure in place and trained and well-led troops. But when things fall apart and collapse, that's when the losses occur. I don't know what else we expected him to say. He's certainly not going to tell the truth. He's got to say, oh, this will be terribly helpful. But he caveats it by at least arguing that, well, if I don't get these things quickly, it probably won't make a lot of difference. I mean, that's the implication of his statement. Truth is, none of it's going to work. Well, here she asks him, cut number four,

Chris, if he's going to ask for more money a year from now. Colonel, before we go to this, is he going to be around a year from now? No. Absolutely not. Here's what he says. President Zelensky, can you give Americans a sense of the timeline? Will you still need as much aid this time next year? Or do you think you can turn the corner on Russia? The decision to supply F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine, we've had it a year ago. One year ago, we got the positive response. Ukraine should receive these fighter jets so that not only air defense protects the sky, but we also have modern jets. A year has passed, we still don't have the jets in Ukraine. So it's very difficult to do any forecast. I would like us to be open and very, very specific. From the moment we get our hands on these weapon systems,

well, from that moment, we can talk about the timeline. This is exactly what you told us, as how long it would take for them to train people to use the F-16s. Those things were authorized more than a year ago and they're not there yet. I don't think this current tranche identifies exactly what's coming and who knows what, if anything, is coming or if it isn't all just intended to enrich the donor class here in the U.S.? Well, let's keep something else in mind too, Judge. I realize that this government in Washington, speaking as it does for the American people, has effectively said that it rejects any relationship with Moscow on the basis of conditions that we do not set. In other words, unless the Russians all agree to adopt whatever we tell them is appropriate for their society and for their government, unless they remove the people that currently govern them, unless they put their arms down, join hands and sing Kumbaya with us,

we can't get along with the Russians. Well, sending this kind of money towards Ukraine at this stage signals to the Russians that any hope of a relationship with Washington is dead. And that's why Foreign Minister Lavrov, within the last 48 hours, was interviewed and asked what would happen if there were negotiations and whether or not Moscow was still receptive to negotiations. And he said, yes, we will be receptive to negotiations. But keep in mind two things. First of all, just because we negotiate, we will not stop fighting. We will continue until we have achieved all of our objectives militarily. And then secondly, and very importantly, we are not going to cease hostilities for even a brief period of time because we know that we are going to hold what we've won.

Effectively, the facts on the ground have changed. And we are no longer willing to talk about trades in what kind of territory we're willing to surrender to you in order to have peace. It's over. And we've made fools out of ourselves. And worst of all, we've made fools out of NATO. NATO looks weak and stupid. The Ukrainian state is ruined. Whatever emerges after this will be a rump state.

And that rump state will effectively be a demilitarized zone, a DMZ. And in it will live Ukrainians that can tend to their fields and go about their lives, but there will be no military power that threatens Russia. Colonel, I think we've been through this before, but what was Putin's rationale for moving troops into Ukraine? And wouldn't that rationale apply in the West as well? No, no. You know, in Western Ukraine, I think his argument is pretty— I meant to the United States.

Oh, well, at this stage, he's learned some hard lessons, as have his colleagues in the Russian government, that you can't trust us. Whatever we say is a lie. The Minsk Accords, of course, set the stage for that. And now I think there's just a readiness to say, to hell with it. We'll end this on our terms as we see fit. Now, they don't want to march all the way to the Polish border. I've always said that. That's never been in the cards. They're not interested in it. But they'll do it if they

feel it's necessary. But they will stipulate very clearly what the conditions are in western Ukraine. In the United States, it's a matter of what do we do next. We don't seem to think that there are either limits to our interests or to our resources. And that's untrue. We're exhausting our resources. Everyone inside the military understands that. The Defense Department knows it. We don't have much left to fight with at this stage. If we have to go to war, we're in a lot of trouble. So now we've created a second front in the Middle East. It was never really necessary. And apparently that's not even enough. They'd like to have a second front in the Middle East. It was never really necessary. And apparently that's not even enough.

They'd like to have a third front in Asia, which is utterly preposterous. And we have no interest in either area to broaden or expand a war. So this is the problem. No sense of limits to our resources and no sense of limits to our interests. Colonel, over the weekend, there were rumors, which came from several sources, of a thousand French troops on the ground near Odessa. There were rumors of President Putin being rushed to the Kremlin in the middle of the night on Sunday night. What do you make of this stuff? Well, Putin may well have been rushed to the

Kremlin, but I'm not sure what the reason was. And I'm also not convinced that's not unusual. I mean, he's the head of state. Presidents and prime ministers, kings and princes are regularly awakened in the middle of the night to deal with issues. But as it turns out, no one in Odessa has seen any French or American forces. And I hope for their sake and for the sake of the West, as well as the East in this fight, we don't see any. Because if we go into Odessa, that's essentially a war with Russia. And Russia doesn't want a war with us. And we obviously have no interest in a war with them. So we need to stay out because that's essentially the same as,

let's imagine the Russians decided to occupy Tijuana just across the border from the United States. Look at the border and look at where Tijuana is located and put 40 or 50,000 troops there. And they would face almost instantly overnight hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. We would regard that as an act of war and we would crush it. And that's exactly what the Russians will do. And then the danger is that some fool in Washington will say, well, we can't allow this to happen. And we'll try to find something else that we can do to provoke Russia or worse, escalate to the nuclear level, which is, as President Putin has said, Armageddon.

And that's something that neither he nor we want. So this is stupidity on stilts once again. Colonel, transitioning to Israel and Iran, who in your opinion won or prevailed or did the better job, whatever words you choose, in the back and forth between the two countries which occurred as a result of the Israeli attack on and destruction of the Iranian consulate in Damascus? I don't see the Iranian-Israeli conflict at this point as being in a category of win on either side or loss on either side. I think it's very clear that Gaza has been a catastrophe for the Israeli Defense Force. Clearly, that is a failure. The mission to eradicate, root out, and destroy Hamas has failed.

And using that as a pretext to drive millions of people out of their homes and away from Israel because they're Arabs, Muslim, or Christian has failed. The issue with Iran, I think, is unresolved. The Iranians demonstrated it with their response to the Israeli airstrike that they can reach critical and sensitive targets inside Israel and that potentially they could destroy much of the country. That much is achieved. The Israelis did not respond. And I'm not sure that I nor anyone else who has not sat in on the meetings at the highest levels can completely explain that. But I don't think it's over. And I think it would be a mistake to assume that Mr. Netanyahu has decided, okay, we won't bother with Iran anymore. No, I think very differently. He still has substantial American military power in the region to which he has access. He still has considerable capability of his own. And he may decide at some point that it's time to take action against Iran. And as we've

seen today, there's more fighting in southern Lebanon. And if that escalates, then Iran is clearly back in the target area because without Iran, Hezbollah could not survive. It probably could not even exist. Talking about Hezbollah, here's John Sowers, who's the former head of MI6, with some very interesting advice to Prime Minister Netanyahu, basically saying, why don't you just leave Gaza and declare it a victory, even though you didn't win, and concentrate your efforts on Hezbollah? Listen to this. Very interesting. Cut number nine, Chris.

This general is saying that you have to finish the job in Gaza. I'm not so sure about that, actually. I think Israel succeeded in reducing Gaza to rubble. Is that a success? Well, exactly. That's not exactly a success. They haven't secured the release of the remaining hostages who are still alive. They haven't killed the Hamas commanders. They've caused an enormous amount of humanitarian suffering. Frankly, I think from the Israeli point of view,

they can change the subject. They can switch to Iran and Hezbollah and just call it a day in Gaza. I think that is conceivable. But the alternative, Christian, is if the Israelis do go back into, in a big way, into Rafah to take on the last of the Hamas battalions. Yes, there's a security logic to it, but will they actually achieve any more than they've achieved already? Can they achieve any more than they've achieved already? Colonel? I think that Mr. Netanyahu recognizes that they have thus far failed in Gaza and remember that the ultimate goal or

objective was not simply to destroy Hamas that was a useful excuse you cannot have Israel from Jordan to the sea unless you can drive the Arabs that live on the remaining lands that are technically either within Israel or immediately adjacent to it out out of their homes, out of their towns, away from their farms, and into neighboring states. So if he doesn't do that, how does he get settlers, Israeli settlers, Israeli homeowners, Israeli occupants, inhabitants, to go back to the places where they formerly lived in southern israel well he can't do that the same holds true for northern israel but i would disagree with

the intelligence chief and i would argue that gaza should be finished in some way i would not do what mr netanyahu has done obviously i would I would seek some sort of alternative solution. But the notion of expanding the war to Hezbollah, a force that is not going to easily be defeated and could conceivably bring in Iran once again into the fight, is disastrous. It's very reminiscent of the decision to turn on the Soviet Union with Great Britain sitting in the rear of the German empire. Impossible. As long as Britain remained the

unsinkable aircraft carrier, why would you take on the Soviet Union? It's foolhardy and stupid. And I think the same thing is true for Hezbollah. If Israel takes on Hezbollah and Iran gets involved, what does Putin do? Well, that's another factor in this equation. It's more than just a factor. It's a critical variable. Mr. Putin holds all the cards strategically behind the scenes in the Middle East right now. He's widely respected. He's always counseled, restrained, patient, and in general, the states, the people in the region have taken his advice on board. He's held in very high esteem, as is Russia right now. In fact, if you look at it from the standpoint of a branding exercise, our brand is severely damaged. We look ridiculous. And Russia's brand is very strong and looks very, very appealing.

I think that Mr. Putin, by placing additional Russian troops in Syria, having put Russian forces in the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, as well as in the Mediterranean, has made it very clear how he feels and what he's prepared to do if, in fact, we and the Israelis decide to take on Iran. And that's why I say the notion of turning on Hezbollah right now makes a future collision with Iran inevitable. Why would you do that if you're interested in first and foremost ridding your country of Hamas? Well, I think Hamas is important, but it's a sideshow to Mr. Netanyahu. He wants his entire country to be, quote unquote, Arab free. In order to achieve that end, he's got to defeat all of Israel's

opponents in the region. That means a regional war. He can't do that without American support. Here's John Sowers again arguing for the two-state solution. Cut number 10. I think Hamas will be able to reconstitute its military forces. There'll be plenty of volunteers for Hamas battalions emerging out of this conflict. And the only real answer to both Gaza and the West Bank is to have an authoritative Palestinian leadership, which takes responsibility for those territories in the context of working towards a Palestinian state, which lives alongside a secure and peaceful Israel. Isn't that effectively impossible with the current

leadership of the Israeli government and the attitude of the Israeli people post-October 7th? Absolutely. Mr. Netanyahu has the backing of 80 to 85 percent of his population when it comes to this issue of the two-state solution. A Palestinian state on the borders of Israel or containing or embracing parts of Israel is, from the vantage point of the Israelis, the equivalent of setting up an organized crime state that will hold a knife to the throat of Jews and Israel in perpetuity. Remember, all of this is about vanquishing the enemies, the opponents of Israel, and destroying anyone who, in their their minds challenges or threatens jews that's why you continually hear in the american and western press anyone who fails to support israel unconditionally

being called an anti-semite they they have tried to identify anti-semitism with being anti-israeli and so the idea of a separate distinct state that legitimates the Arabs that live in Palestine in any way, shape, or form as deserving of such a state is unacceptable. They won't do it. So I think he's delusional. And as a result, the nicely. Colonel, on the last 48 hours, Columbia University and Yale University have suspended their live classes. They're all online. Harvard University has closed Harvard Yard. Columbia University has invited the New York City police onto the campus to arrest demonstrators. Nobody's been accused of violence. They're just accused of trespassing. Everybody who's been arrested

is arguing from the river to the sea, Palestine should be free. Okay. Are you concerned about the freedom of speech in America, Colonel? Oh, of course. I think the Bill of Rights in this country has been abused if not widely ignored in in too many places and across the country we have people sitting in jail who were arrested charged and ultimately sentenced unfairly and unjustly in my judgment on the basis of January 6th it's outrageous and at the time, we have justices all over the country releasing criminals into the streets. It doesn't make any sense. The world is turned upside down. And again, this goes back to the idea that you cannot attack, you cannot challenge anyone who takes the position that Israel is right and the rest of the world is wrong.

And that's simply inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, and it violates everything that we historically have stood for. Remember, I think it was Jefferson who said, I may not agree with you, but I will fight to the death for your right to disagree. That's been one of the things that separated us from so many other countries around the world for hundreds of years. We seem to have jettisoned that. Now we are passing legislation that creates categories of protected people. This is not good for national cohesion. It's not good for American society.

I don't think it's good for Israel, frankly, but more important, I think it harms Jews all over the United States and the Western world. Before we go, I'd like to go back to something you mentioned earlier, which is scary, actually. And that is we've, and correct me if I'm mischaracterizing what you said, Colonel, we have given away so much of our substantial military equipment, we might not have available for us what we might need if, God forbid, we need it. Okay. That's absolutely right. Look at the loss rates in terms of equipment and people in the war between Ukraine and Russia we neither

have the the soldiers sailors Airmen and Marines on active duty to withstand those losses nor do we have the backlog of stored equipment that would could be opened and then rapidly redistributed to replace losses on the battlefield what we've done is that we've sent almost everything we have across the sea to Ukraine. And now we've done the same thing with ammunition, particularly precision-guided missiles and precision-guided artillery, as well as spare parts to Israel. If we are suddenly called upon to fight a major war that would require us to fight on land. Americans need to understand that contrary to popular belief, wars are generally not decided at sea or in the air. They're decided on land.

And right now, we don't have the force structure, nor do we have the depth in the force to fight a major war on land anywhere, perhaps in Texas against Mexico, but that's about it. I realize the constitutional system provides for civilian control of the military, and that's a positive good, but do the people that wear the uniform understand and appreciate the dangers of the depletion of ammunition and equipment? You know, I think they do. But they lived in a world where nothing they did seemed to matter for so long that I think they decided this doesn't matter either.

I would compare it to the way we treat the national sovereign debt. People are raising the debt issue all the time. I think we're at, what, $35 trillion now and climbing and saying it doesn't matter. It doesn't make any difference. It hasn't made any difference yet. But with each passing day, we look carefully at the treasury market and we wonder how much longer that facade will be preserved. There are a hundred other factors in the economy that have an impact. It's very fragile. It could fall apart quickly. Well, the same thing is true militarily. What looks from a distance strong and capable, once you get closer to it and then you hurl it into action, may not hold together at all. And right now, I think that's the case with

us. And detecting this kind of rot in your military power is not as easy as it seems. And remember, you're dealing with a Congress that thinks its principal mission is to spend money. And they spend it, whether or not what they buy works, whether or not what they're supporting with their funds is effective, excuse me, all shrinks to insignificance. What counts most of all is spending the money, because if you don't spend the money, your constituents are unhappy, your donors are unhappy, and you are not going to last in office colonel um this little show is just about to reach the it's 350 000th subscriber how fitting and appropriate that it should happen

while you and i are on because you've been so valuable to the show to our ideas to moving the needle and to me personally. And our friendship is a gift. Thank you very much for your time, my dear friend. We'll see you again soon. Okay. Thank you, Judge. Of course. And coming up later today at three o'clock Eastern, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, and at 4.30 Eastern, Scott Ritter. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Altyazı M.K.