Judging Freedom - Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: Musical Chairs in Ukraine Military

Episode Date: February 12, 2024

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: Musical Chairs in Ukraine MilitarySee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

You Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Friday, February 9th, 2024. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson joins us now. Colonel, it's always a pleasure. Welcome here, my friend. Before we get into your thoughts on the Tucker Carlson, Vladimir Putin interview, there have been some events and observations in Ukraine, which I would like to address with you, particularly because of your military as well as your diplomatic background. When we spoke last, which was a week ago, President Zelensky was saying, I'm going to fire General Zelensky, I'm going to fire General Zelensky. It took him a week to do it. Yesterday he did and replaced him with General Siersky,

whose nickname is the Butcher of Bakhmut. A, what does this kind of a firing and transfer of authority when the government is on its last leg tell you? And B, what can you tell us about the Butcher of Bakhmut? One, it either tells us that Zelensky is desperate, or two, it's his political way of dealing with potentially the most difficult and he didn't seem to be too unhappy about being fired, because now he's free of any further connection with the debacle that is Ukraine now. And if there is an aftermath, and one thinks there will be some sort of aftermath, he's going to help pick up the pieces, and he's going to have high poll ratings politically to do so. So it's a good situation for him. Zelensky is desperate now. And just the fact that he hired this guy, who, as you said, has somewhat of a tarnished reputation, although his defense of Kyiv in

the beginning was something that the Ukrainians probably look at positively, I think the latter events have tarnished his reputation. So it doesn't point to Zelensky having a lot of acumen in terms of picking his military leaders. How was General Zeluzhny, the one that he fired, recognized in the international community of high-ranking military officers? Was there respect for his skills as a military tactician and commander of hundreds of thousands of troops? Most of the assessments that I read that were written or spoken by people with whom I have some respect for, and boy, that community's growing smaller and smaller, said he was a reputable, confident general. And that's something for

that entourage of players, for people to say that. More than that, probably, I think what I saw, at least through the lens that I look, he handled the troops and he handled the situation as well as almost anyone could be expected to, given the circumstances. And I think that's one reason why Ukrainians have given him fairly high poll ratings. He's also a pretty good spokesperson, as I understand it. I don't speak Ukrainian or Russian. But I understand he handles crowds well, whether they're crowds of soldiers or crowds of civilians or a combination of there too. So he could be a good politician as well as a fairly competent military professional.

Since we spoke last, so this is like five days ago in the Sunday Washington Post, there is a report of 12 Ukrainian soldiers who told several Washington Post journalists who got very close to the front line that in their brigade that is normally 400, there were only 40. And that a number of other brigades at the front line have suffered similar drastic reductions in manpower. Now, given that it's the Washington Post, is this something the CIA wants out there, or is this likely to be true? And if it is true, how catastrophic is that, Colonel, to go from 400 to 40 and then multiply it by the number of brigades that are out there. Absolutely catastrophic. And I'll tell you something else I'm hearing that I think is genuine,

doesn't come from the Washington Post, comes from better sources than that. And what I'm hearing is that the politics in Kyiv and elsewhere are growing grim. And by that, I mean, you've got people in Ukraine who now realize that the conscription process has taken the poor, the lonely, the detached, the non-oligarchical, the non-rich, et cetera, et cetera, more than it's taken anyone in the top ranks. And so you've got what you'd have in this country if we suddenly got into a fracas and had to go to conscription. You get people really mad about being conscripted or having their youngsters conscripted and maybe dead or badly wounded or still on the front lines in the circumstances you just described. And the rich boys getting out of it and the rich girls getting out of it.

And you're taking in 43 to 44 to 45 older people. And as one person said to me, you know, Larry, 43 year olds don't make good for frontline infantrymen. Boy, do I know that? I mean, you just you were desperate when you do those things. And then on top of that, you've got people now really concerned and getting angry about your conscription process, which is very unfair. Is this a conscription process like we have had in the U.S., or is this just impressment where the grand people in bars and on the streets and virtually or literally kidnap them? It's both, but it's not any kind of impressment of the rich kids. They're not in it. All right. So they're not going to the discos on a Saturday night. They're going to the bars down the side alley on a Sunday afternoon. Okay. I know this sounds ridiculous, so try not to laugh, but what is the significance of the UK Prime Minister offering to send British troops to fight in Ukraine and British jets to enforce a no-fly zone over Kyiv? Does he know what he's talking about?

Absurd. I recently had a conversation with the Royal Marine, whom I know quite well, and I've had conversations with other British soldiers. And I will tell you right now what one of them told me. We don't have a land force adequate to defend Britain or even London. They are so small right now that to suggest putting British forces into Ukraine would mean British forces got swallowed up in about 48 hours. And their Air Force is not that formidable either. I mean, they've got some aircraft that are formidable and they've got some good pilots. But no one's taken a look for a long time within NATO. No one of consequence has said anything about it anyway.

To the way the British have reduced their armed forces. They are tiny now. How did it get that small, 75,000 troops? Money. Money. Money. They just don't have the money. They build one big ship and say, whoa, whoa, look at this. We're floating her now. And the Royal Navy is a shadow of its old self. Don't the neocons recognize that this is a crushing disaster? And before you answer that, one of the princes of the neocons, Bill Crystal, with whom you may have had contact in your days in the State Department, actually suggested to the American government that

Tucker Carlson should be barred from returning to the United States because he engaged in the freedom of speech with the Russian leader in Moscow. So neocons in general recognizing their failure. Do they ever? I had a number of times to meet with Bill Kristol or see Bill Kristol or talk with Bill Kristol. And I can tell you the latest one, as I recall, was when he joined the election task force along with David Frum and a lot of other people I was surprised to see in the room.

I would just say Bill Kristol's word I would take maybe along with Lincoln Penny. Bill Kristol and Hillary Clinton kind of from different camps, but they fit in the same boat as far as I'm concerned. For example, Hillary's comments about Tucker. I mean, those were those were his in politics. Those are very, very bad remarks, diplomatically speaking, about Gaddafi. We came, we saw he died. Probably the most incredible remark any American diplomat has made in the last 50, 60 years. Tucker Carlson did a service. I don't care what you think about Tucker Carlson. He went to the, quote, enemy, unquote, the leader of the enemy, and he got an interview. And frankly, I thought that interview was extremely revealing, especially when Putin started to talk about why he was ready to talk and the circumstances under which he would talk. I mean, you could not ask for a better invitation from the leader of a country who is now clearly victorious over a country you've been milking to try and bring him down. You couldn't ask for a more serious invitation to come talk and end this incredible

mess we've got in the heart of Europe. And that anyone would be going after it or going after Tucker, the man who revealed it, is just preposterous. This is part of diplomacy. If journalists have to do your diplomacy for you, you're in pretty bad shape. That is a great line and a great observation because the American diplomats under Joe Biden and Tony Blinken and Jake Sullivan are not doing it. For laughs now, just for laughs, we have Mrs. Clinton. We'll play that and then we'll talk a little bit.

And then we have the very cut that you were talking about, about the circumstances under which Vladimir Putin would call Joe Biden. But first, Mrs. Clinton, and then we'll chat about her. She comes off. Well, you'll see. What does that tell you about Tucker Carlson and right wing media and also Vladimir Putin? Well, it shows me what I think we've all known. He's what's called a useful idiot. I mean, if you actually read translations of what's being said on Russian media, they make fun of him. I mean, he's like a puppy dog. You know, he somehow is, after having been fired from so many outlets in the United States, I would not be surprised if he emerges with a contract with a Russian outlet. She was the secretary of state of the United States, a job once held by Thomas Jefferson and your boss and colleague Colin Powell.

And now she comes off like this. Astonishing. She will never cease to amaze me. Sometimes she makes fairly cogent and remarkable remarks. And other times she's just like the ones about Gaddafi and these remarks here. She's just an idiot. She's the useful idiot. Now, she was trying to suggest, of course, that Tucker Carlson's an idiot, but he was useful. Okay, take the idiot out. I don't care how you characterize Tucker Carlson. He was useful. He was very useful because he got Putin to essentially lay down what were his requirements for talks, which have to happen. The only reason to go on six more months or 12 more months, if that's possible under the present circumstances, is to kill more Ukrainians and a few Russians. That's the only

reason. You're not going to bring Russia down. You're going to make Lockheed Martin maybe a little richer, but who the hell wants to do that? Let's stop this killing. Putin was saying, I feel the same way. Let's talk. If we don't pick up on this, if we don't do something to take advantage of this, then we are now 100% guilty of every single Ukrainian that dies after this moment. Colonel, here's one of the most important, in my view, the important parts of the interview. And it's exactly the part that you were talking about. T2, Chris.

And so why don't you just call Biden and say, let's work this out? What's there to work out? It's very simple. I repeat, we have contacts through various agencies. I will tell you what we are saying on this matter and what we are conveying to the US leadership. If you really want to stop fighting, you need to stop supplying weapons. It will be over within a few weeks. That's it.

And then we can agree on some terms. Before you do that, stop. What's easier? Why would I call him? What should I talk to him about? Or beg him for what? And what messages do you get back? You're going to deliver such and such weapons to Ukraine?

Oh, I'm afraid, I'm afraid, please don't. What is there to talk about? He's a very sharp man with excellent communication skills and a terrific grasp of what's going on. Don't you agree? I do. I agree with him when he talks very, very, very pointedly about what's going on. Don't you agree? I do. I agree with him when he talks very, very, very pointedly about what we're doing. He says we're threat mongering.

When we talk about, you know, when Biden talks about, oh, you know, Munich and appeasement, and if we don't stand by Ukraine, Latvia will be next, or Estonia. He even mentions Latvia and Estonia. And that's preposterous. He says that's threat mongering. He's very calm. He says that's threat mongering. That's exactly what Washington is doing. That's exactly what the New York Times and the Washington Post and most of the mainstream media is doing, threat mongering. And that's not what they should be doing. They should be trying to get to the roots of this and tell some truth about it. That's not what they're doing.

So he characterized that absolutely right. And when he was asked by Tucker what would happen if it went to NATO, that is to say if NATO actually entered the conflict on the ground, Putin said it would bring humanity to a disaster. But the hint was there, the suggestion was there, and other answers he gave said the same thing. I'm not going to start it. You're the one who's going to start it if you do that. And he's right, because we would probably evolve to the use of nuclear weapons.

Before his recent embarrassments over the classified documents in his home. President Biden spent the week trying to twist arms of Republicans in Congress to vote in favor of another 61. I'm not sure exactly what the number is. It's somewhere in that area. Imagine how we throw around billions as if we're talking about kids throwing quarters. $34 trillion aggregate debt, the CBO said. And worse than that, we're going to have a trillion dollars in interest payments annually. And we're going to give all this money away. Well, Joe Biden wants to give another $61 billion to Vladimir Putin.

And one of the things, excuse me, God have mercy on me, to Vladimir Zelensky. And one of the reasons he says is if Putin takes Ukraine, like he really wants to operate and govern Ukraine, he's likely to move into Poland. So, Tucker Carlson says, are there any circumstances, Mr. President, under which you would invade Poland? Cut T1. Can you imagine a scenario where you sent Russian troops to Poland? Only in one case, if Poland attacks Russia. Why? Because we have no interest in Poland, Latvia or anywhere else. Why would we do that? We simply don't have any interest.

It's just threat-mongering. So, I just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding what you're saying. I don't think that I am. I think you're saying you want a negotiated settlement to what's happening in Ukraine right and we made it we prepared the huge document in Istanbul that was initialed by the head of the Ukrainian delegation he had fixed his signature to some of the provisions not to all of it he put his signature and then he himself said. We were ready to sign it and the war would have been over long ago, 18 months ago. However, Prime Minister Johnson came, talked us out of it and we missed that chance.

You and I have talked about this extensively, Colonel. Some of our neocon friends or some of our friends have denied that such an agreement existed. Two Ukrainian negotiators have basically said the same thing President Putin just said. And he went like this, showing his fingers an inch apart, that it was a substantial document that they prepared and signed until Boris Johnson, no doubt at the insistence of the American State Department or perhaps the White House, went there and said, don't sign it, don't sign it, we have your back. This is what we've been doing all along. We've been doing this since 2000. We've been doing it vividly since 2014. We've been putting away everything that might have led to a solution to this before Putin invaded.

And now I think we're putting away everything that might, including this interview, that might lead to a solution now that he has invaded and the war is going to kill so many people, Russians and Ukrainians alike. We are at fault here, big time, just like we are at fault for our support, unprecedented support, for the genocide occurring in Gaza. The president has suffered tremendous humiliation this week, some of it having to do with his cognitive abilities. of comparing the American State Department with the Kremlin is an embarrassment to the American State Department, which you with your colleague, the late Colin Powell, once ran. Do you think Jake Sullivan and Tony Blinken are humiliated after listening to this interview? I don't see that how they could not be. If they do nothing more than say, wow, we have missed a lot of signals. Maybe we should go back and play the tapes of Sergei Lavrov's multiple interviews day after day, week after week. Maybe we should go back and listen to some of the other

MOFA officials who are less than Sergei. And maybe we should listen to what Tucker Carlson just did for us as the premier diplomat for the United States. Thank you very much, Mrs. Clinton, at least for the time of that interview, and suddenly move out on some initiative that might stop this thing. I have to conclude, Judge, I have to conclude that they are still stuck on this dual track of making money and trying to bring Putin to some position that he wasn't at beforehand. And they don't realize that what they're doing is making Putin more powerful, not less powerful. And they're killing a lot of people in Ukraine. Lockheed, take your stock shares and everything else and go away for a while. Let's just get this thing stopped. Get out of the situation. Get out of the scene. This is not a place for you to make billions of dollars on the weapons you sell. Let's get this

stopped and let's get it stopped quickly. It has certainly the potential, if we don't get it stopped, not only to kill more Ukrainians, but as Putin suggested a couple of times in the interview, to get out of hand. Colonel, thank you very much. Your concluding remarks were terrific. We will isolate them and post them along, of course, with the full length of this interview. It's great to be able to talk to you and pick your brain as you've just let us do. Thank you so much. Have a great weekend. You got to ask me about Gaza. All right. You know, Daniel Levy put it so well yesterday. He said, Netanyahu is giving them a choice, apartheid or death. That's right. if he accepts a two-state solution of some sort,

he wants apartheid. Well, you know what the Saudis just said. The Saudis and the Israelis were, we believe, on the verge of normalization before October 7th. Now the Saudis said two-state solutions, 1967 borders, capital in East Jerusalem, a full-fledged country with its own security force and its own military. I can't imagine that that would happen while Prime Minister Netanyahu was alive, much less still Prime Minister. Mohammed bin Salman is sensing the feelings of his own people, which he, even though he's a dictator par excellence, he has to take into consideration the crowds. The crowds are furious. Yep.

Isn't the United States effectively waging war against helpless Palestinian people in Gaza? It is. There's no question about it. Those planes would not be flying now. They would not be dropping bombs. They certainly wouldn't be dropping 2,000-pound bombs, which are just deadly with civilians. They wouldn't be doing anything, really, if the United States said categorically, if you do not stop within 24 hours, tomorrow morning, we will stop all support. The largest war reserve stocks that we maintain are in Israel, and they're drawing those down right now as I speak. They would not be able to prosecute this war very much longer at all if we said stop. And if we said stop, I think Likud would get rid of Netanyahu.

Pleasure, Colonel. Thank you so much, my dear friend. Have a great weekend. I hope you can come back with us next week as usual. Take care. All the best. Another gifted person of vast experience, and I'm deeply grateful that I can present him to you and that he joins us every week. Coming up in 15 minutes, 4.15 Eastern, it's Friday afternoon, the boys, Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern on Gaza, on Ukraine, on Vladimir Putin. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.