Judging Freedom - Col. Tony Shaffer: US diplomatic failures in Ukraine and Israel

Episode Date: November 8, 2023

#israel #gaza #Palestine #ukraine #hamas #peace"The way I've defined the Biden administration's position on the Middle East is that they don't want to lose. They don't want to win. They don't understand the mechanisms or levers available to them."About Tony Shaffer:Lt. Col. Anthony (Tony) Shaffer (Ret) is a Senior Fellow with both the London Center for Policy Research and the Center for Advanced Defense Studies (CADS), and a consultant.He is a senior operations officer and Military Operations Training Course (MOTC) graduate with over 29 years of field experience. He has held numerous leadership positions, including as commander of Operating Base (OB) Alpha (Defense Intelligence) and as directing Task Force STRATUS IVY – a unit that conducted cutting-edge technology and information operations from the mid-90s through the turn of the century. He has played key roles in multiple interagency operations that were conducted with the NSA, CIA, and FBI.Lt. Col. Shaffer has led operations from the tactical level, such as defense source operations to protect REFORGER exercises in the 1980s to a strategic level, such as STRATUS IVY’s direct support mission for Operation ABLE DANGER in the late 1990s. Prior to the consolidation of all Department of Defense (DoD) Human Intelligence resources and operations under DIA in 1995, he was the chief of the Army’s controlled HUMINT program – overseeing Army Intelligence and Security Command’s global controlled HUMINT efforts. He was responsible for combining cutting-edge technology with traditional military operations and intelligence collection to maximize the Department of Defense’s ability to detect, monitor, and neutralize emerging threats.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 Wednesday, November 8th, 2023. Lieutenant Colonel Tony Schaefer joins us now. Tony, always a pleasure. Welcome back to the show. Thank you, Judge. Always good to be here. Thank you. Over the weekend, General Valery Zheluzhny, the commander of the Ukrainian military forces, gave an interview to The Economist magazine in which he said that the war in Ukraine was effectively a stalemate between Ukraine and Russia. President Zelensky and his people erupted almost violently and condemned what General Zeluzhny said.

Two days later, General Zeluzhny's chief of staff was celebrating his birthday. He opened up a birthday present and it exploded in his hands and he was dead what's your take on all of this I'd be careful about what birthday parties I go to in Ukraine just saying so uh first off I want to point out to the audience that what is now transpiring coming out you've been covering a long time that this offensive was not going to work Doug McGregor and Danny Davis a lot of us have been speaking out on this and the facts have always been clear to us, but it seems to me the propaganda was very strong and it's taken this long for the sheen of propaganda to wear off and

get to the truth. Zelensky's desperate and the Zeluzny interview to to uh the economist i think is problematic it's not it's not a stalemate they've lost the ability to generate offensive operations that they being ukraine and the russians by most credible accounts now are back on the offensive and and we're not i'm not talking about 1945 uh you know uh front level moving tanks towards Kiev like they, you know, like they did with Berlin. I'm talking about that the tactical situation has changed so that the Russians now can take and use initiative at a local basis to regain terrain. And that's what's being reported. This is mainstream media reporting from a number of sources. So Zeluzny was simply reflecting the fact that the offensive failed. That's it. And you see people freaking out in the United States. I don't even know what to think of how the Biden

folks are going to respond to this, because it's simply going to demonstrate that the funding was ineffective because the strategy was ineffective. It was never going to demonstrate that the funding was ineffective because the strategy was ineffective. It was never going to work. We said this was never going to work. And here we are. We did say it, and I'm smiling only because you anticipated my next question. I mean, how do the president and the neocon cabal around him get out of this? They wasted $113 billion. We don't know how many Ukrainians are dead. Reports are between 300,000 and 500,000. The 50,000 died in the failed offensive.

All of our people, including you, predicted before the offensive started that it wasn't worth it and that it would fail. How do they get out of this other than by diverting our attention to Israel? Well, they've already, that's number one. They want to kind of divert it over without admitting it because Biden is still working with Senate Democrats to try to prevent the splitting of funding between the Israeli issue and the Ukrainian issue. But there's a subtle but distinct difference in the way they're messaging it now. They're basically going to say, don't look at Ukraine. We have to focus, as you point out, on the Israel issue. And we can't let them do that because this is another situation.

And this is where I completely align with libertarian thinking on this. We have far too often gotten ourselves involved in military activities, made really horrific choices, and then, oh, we pretend it didn't happen. No, no, no. We need to look at how we got here. And the Neocon establishment, the Jennifer Rubens, the- Victoria Nuland. Paul Klugman, that knucklehead at the New York Times, the economist, he's on board trying, oh, the spending is important. No, it's not. It's wasteful and it's inefficient. I want an effective defense, not an expensive defense. And you could have that. But they're going to

reframe it, Judge. They're going to try to say, oh, it's not our fault, but it is their fault. It was their strategy. It was funding adequate to the level they asked for and more, I think. And it did not work because they did not want it to work. They were never in it to win it. This is another example of the neocons wanting to maintain the slow stream of misery to keep the U.S. engaged as a noncombatant aggressor trying to keep things going. I mean, we should never have been involved in what I consider a Slav versus Slav issue within the region.

That is something we could have been helpful and negotiate. We should never have been trying to take a side at this point. Let's get back to the explosion. It was a birthday gift, and it looked like they were shot glasses, shots of liquor, made to look like a fake grenade. Only one of them was a real grenade. The general, not Jaluzny, his chief of staff, maybe was a colonel. I couldn't tell from the insignia. They're different from ours.

Gave it to his 13-year-old son. The son couldn't open it. The son gave it back to the general. The general opened it. Boom, it exploded and blew him apart. It did not come from the mail. It was delivered to his home. What's your take on that?

Is that sending a message to Zelensky from Zelensky that you could be next if you say things again, like what you said to The Economist magazine, because the Russians don't trade in this. They could have knocked off Zelenskyy long ago, but that's not their style. Well, they could use polonium-210 and tea as a certain, a certain, if kill certain dissidents in England. So I'm just saying, to your point, you can take the man out of the Soviet. You can't take the Soviet out of the man. These people are still cut from the same cloth as the Soviet Union. They're going to do this sort of thing.

They very much use intimidation and assassination as a part of their political process. And yeah, this is a strong message to Zeluzhny. I think Zeluzhny is on the path of being relieved or worse. Is the message from the Ukrainian government or the Russians? I think it's from the Ukrainian government because, again, the Ukrainians have been unified in this belief that included all their media, all their general staff in the military, and the political leadership of the country that, oh, the offensive is inevitably going to achieve specific and great objectives, relieving Crimea from the control of Russia, doing all these other great things.

And it's like, again, those of us who have studied this issue, I'm not even an expert on the region. And it's like, this is not going to work because they were committed to it. And now because that veneer of the propaganda is breaking away and you had such a clear and demonstrative break by Zeluzny, I mean, just him saying it's a stalemate is a huge break from the propaganda. I think he's basically going to limit his durability as a general within the Ukrainian military. You and I have spoken about, and this is before October 7th, how the Ukrainian-Russian war is the most propagandized in the modern era. But now you don't hear very much about it at all, except when something like this happens.

The general tells the magazine, like The Economist, we're at a stalemate. The general's chief of staff is murdered. The president publicly condemns the general. You don't hear about it at all. Has the American government given up the ghost on Ukraine? And if they have, is it because of the attitude of the Republicans in the House or failure is an orphan? Nobody wants to admit that they fathered it. Well, I think it's all the above. I mean, the biggest indicator that everybody's abandoned the effort is Zelensky and his bar tirade asking for credit.

Hey, I'm out of whiskey. I need more credit. I mean, that was a couple of days. There's all sorts of memes out there of him doing that now. Basically, just give us your money now and we'll pay you back. That's that. That's the face of desperation and a humorous face, I might add. But it's a face of desperation. So that tells me that even his allies in Washington have basically said, hey, bud, it's all over. The gravy train's ending. You can figure it out. And I think this indicates to me, bud, it's all over. The gravy train's ending. You can each figure it out. And I think this indicates to me, Judge, that the Elon Musk peace plan that he put out about two

years ago, where he outlined some of these things, may well be one of the things that people have to pick up because the Ukrainians aren't going to win. And the Russians, I don't think, want to actually have to take responsibility for the entire country. So I think there's going to have to be some sort of peace effort in this issue. I don't see how Joe Biden can win. I mean, the peace plan that Presidents Zelensky and Putin agreed to two years ago, before the Brits and the Americans said, oh, no, no, no, no, we have your back, is a better deal than what they're going to get now. And of course, now they're going to get it with a whole generation of young Ukrainian men dead and buried. Yep. Complete waste. Complete waste. I feel for the Ukrainian people, Judge.

They got sold a bill of goods by Joe Biden, his neocon knucklehead. So I feel their pain, so to speak. I can only imagine the pain of those being in combat. You know, and a quick side on that, the Pentagon was very dismissive of people being in harm's way. I mean, I don't want to go off too far on a tangent here, but yesterday, one of the spokesmen of the Pentagon said, oh, all these attacks in the Middle East by Iranian militia against U.S. forces, oh, it's no big deal. Look, if you're being shot at, bombs are going off close to Oh, it's no big deal. Look, if you're being shot at, bombs are going off close to you. It's a big deal. So the idea that people, and I consider this a class of people, the neocons who have never served, have no interest, who actually get us and our allies into war, basically it's a travesty. And we need to always look at,

buyer beware. Whoever's trying to encourage you to engage in military operations, always check why they're trying to do it, because there's a lot of issues that are not honest, and I think they were sold a bill of goods on Ukraine. You are bringing to my mind the one-liner by Henry Kissinger. Now, I don't want to get into a debate about Kissinger, but the one-liner by Henry Kissinger. Now, I don't want to get into a debate about Kissinger, but the one-liner is true. It is dangerous to be an enemy of the United States. It is worse to be a friend. Vietnam, Ukraine, the neocons will desert you as soon as the money runs out. One more area I want to talk about on Ukraine before we get to Israel. NBC News is reporting that EU and US diplomats have been discussing with each other

the parameters for the mechanics for negotiations, like who and where and when. Do you believe that? And do you think that President Zelensky is aware of it? I do believe it. I don't think Zelensky, I think Zelensky is aware of it. I think he's trying to avoid it. I think there's a small cabal within the Ukrainian government who are still completely divorced from reality, that they're still trying to prop up this, this idea that the West will rescue them. And they're very powerful. They, they, they, the denial is strong within the context of their current governance. They just are going to try to drag it out. I think that they'd rather kill people like Zelensky's chief of staff and admit

defeat. I think that's how, that's how, how they are. And so, but I think they're going to be forced to go to negotiations. There's nothing else. Remember that piece in Time Magazine that we all read and about which we spoke? The reporter traveled around with Zelensky and his inner circle for a week, and then he wrote it. Chris put the salient parts on the screen right there. Zelensky's inner circle is saying he deludes himself. We are out of options.

We are not winning. But try telling him that. Yeah, exactly. Makes my point. Makes my point. Switching gears, why was Secretary of State Lincoln's weekend diplomacy trip in the Middle East such an abysmal failure? Because they don't understand the Arabs. I'm just going to put it right out there. Look, Judge, one of the things that no one's talking about is who is absent in the attacks against the Israelis. And I look back at the 67 War, the 73 War,

there were all the Arab states lining up trying to go after Israel, that they were out in that state. And yet now it's completely, no one once has talked about Egypt picking up and going in and attacking Israel, right? No interest. Matter of fact, I know al-Sisi would never do it. Saudi Arabia is now actually, I think, trying to quietly reconfigure themselves to get back into the discussions to regularize relationships. So this is a piece that people are missing and, and, and they're missing it because it's inconvenient to the narrative that the white house wants. The white house wants, uh, to reconfigure things so that the, uh, the Iranians, the, the Shia are the lead partner in the middle East. And this goes back to Zygmunt Brzezinski back in the freaking Carter administration. I'm still baffled by it. I've seen this and I just don't get it,

but that's why you see this absence. So when Blinken goes over and talks, he's talking to people that he doesn't understand and can't speak to them. Tony is the Biden administration. I mean, I could say Joe Biden, but I don't know if he says what he honestly thinks and processes in his brain or if he's just reading what his staff has written for him. But he is unambiguously in support of the Israeli invasion of Gaza. At the same time, he claims he's unambiguously in favor of a two-state solution. I don't know how you can be in support of both. So is the Biden administration serious about a two-state solution? You can't circle that square. No, the way I've defined the Biden administration's position on the Middle East is

that they don't want to lose. They don't want to win. They don't understand the mechanisms or levers available to them. And therefore, that's why you see people like Tony Blinken going over and just jawing away and nobody listening. This is the honest truth that people are going to talk about. The Arab states want the Israelis to beat Hamas. They do. They don't like what's going to take, and they're not going to say it publicly. But Saudi Arabia wants it.

Jordan wants it. Egypt wants it. Because they don't want that problem. They recognize there has been actual progress made with an absence of focusing on that crisis. The Abraham Accords judge for the first time within the modern context of negotiations divorced the idea of regional collective security from resolving the Hamas and Palestinian issue. That's why the Abraham Accord worked. It was separated. It was bifurcated. Nobody in this Biden administration doesn't want to talk about this. The actual progress on bringing stability and enduring

interlocking collective security agreement happened because people stepped away from Hamas issues and let people start talking. So the Arabs don't want to end that. They don't want that to backstep. So that's why I'm saying that while you're going to see public statements of support for Hamas, the actual answer is the Arabs want the Israelis to win. And I know that's not going to go over well with a lot of people, but that's the brutal truth. No, no, Tony, speak your mind and say what you want to say. Well, I'm speaking my mind, and I know a lot of your audience are going to dig what I'm saying,

but I'm just saying I've got to say what I believe to be factually supportable based on what I'm saying. I think my audience is intrigued by you, Tony, but I want to play two clips for you. This is four and seven, Chris. We'll play them back to back. So first is Prime Minister Netanyahu telling ABC News that the Israelis will govern Gaza. And second is Secretary Blinken in Japan earlier today saying Israel cannot occupy Gaza. President Biden has said that it would be a mistake for Israel to occupy Gaza. Who should govern Gaza when this is over? I think Israel will, for an indefinite period, will have the overall security responsibility

because we've seen what happens when we don't have it. Gaza cannot continue to be run by Hamas. That simply invites a repetition of October 7th, and Gaza uses a place from which to launch terrorist attacks. It's also clear that Israel cannot occupy Gaza. Now, the reality is that there may be a need for some transition period at the end of the conflict, but it is imperative that the Palestinian people be central to governance in Gaza and in the West Bank as well, and that, again, we don't see a reoccupation. And what I've heard from Israeli leaders is that they have no intent to reoccupy Gaza

and retake control of Gaza. So the only question is, is there some transition period that might be necessary? And what might be the mechanisms that you could put in place for that to make sure that there is security? But we're very. I mean, these guys got to get their signals straight, Tony. So when is the last time we gave billions and billions to an ally in wartime and they thumbed their noses at us? Well, that's because the policy's bifurcated. Like I said, they're speaking out of both sides

of the mouth. They don't want to lose. That means they're trying to appease both sides, which means that we are going to be hated by both sides. And I'm just curious about Tony Blinken's visit to Japan, if he was able to talk Godzilla out of trashing Tokyo again, which would probably be about his level. Tony, you're dating yourself. That movie is bold. Yes, I know. Anyway, back to the serious issues of non-Godzilla discussions. No, Blinken is desperate in trying to mediate from a position of weakness. It doesn't matter how much money we give him. It's like the aircraft carriers in the Middle East right now. Nobody believes they're going to do anything. There's a lack of credibility by the Biden administration, because if you stand for nothing, everybody is going to hate you. And

they stand for absolutely nothing. Yes, they say all these great platitudes, but they don't mean them. They don't care. It's all about right now trying to essentially reestablish a path to the joint agreed upon framework for the Iranians because they want to basically get that back on table for whatever strange reason. And they don't want to support the Israelis because I think a lot of the folks in the Biden White House are closet progressives. I think they agree with Tlaib wholeheartedly. It's just they won't say it. But I think there's a great deal of that going on behind the scenes. So when you have that level of dissonance within your own administration, there's no way to focus it.

Last area I want to talk about. You and I talked about this on October 8th, the day after the Hamas invasion, or maybe it was the 9th. Haaretz, that's the Israeli daily newspaper, which is not friendly to the Netanyahu government, reports that the CIA sent three warnings to Prime Minister Netanyahu in the two weeks preceding the October 7th assault, including one on October 6th, warning of imminent military activity or organization, organized movement of military types in Hamas. Question, did Bibi know about this ahead of time? I think they knew, but they were ignoring it. I think it was, let me tell you why I think they ignored it, even with credible reports. I think Egypt, I've talked to folks in Egypt, I think Egypt intelligence gave them a

really solid heads up as well. The Egyptians, again, are really on their side these days, despite the fact they don't talk about it. The Israelis, again, are really on their side these days, despite the fact they don't talk about it. The Israelis work very closely with the Egyptians. And here's why I think they ignored it. Confirmation bias. There was a desire, a want, and this speaks to the kind of the nature of some of the folks at the top of the Israeliraeli government they wanted to believe that hamas was becoming more pliable and more friendly they basically were able that is hamas to double some of their human assets so that those human assets were feeding false information double agent operations one of the things i ran early in my career and then uh there was a belief, again, confirmation bias. They wanted to believe

that there was no danger from the Hamas. So when you get these intelligence reports, which counter your desired narrative, you ignore them. And by the way, people at that level do it all the time. I've been in those rooms where I've had to brief people. A lot of people you know personally, you've been in the room with them. I've briefed them on stuff and they don't want to hear it, even though I can support it factually. You know, so I've just seen that those people at the policy level decide they don't want to accept it. If you have a takeaway from your years in military intelligence and in civilian intelligence, might it be the government doesn't care about the truth? No.

The government cares about the truth if it supports their position within their narrative. They don't want the truth. You said it better than I did. They don't want the truth if it actually count goes uh counter to a political narrative that benefits a politician who's in charge and and so that's my issue is like if i if i come to you with nothing to win or lose that isn't as an intelligence professional i lay this out uh you probably should listen you you may disagree with it but you need to accept the fact that uh i've devoted most of my life to presuming upon you the idea that the information I'm going to provide is supported by facts and not

a fantasy and not a narrative. Got it. Tony, I know you have to run. I do as well. Thank you very much for your time. Look forward to seeing you next week. Great. Good seeing you, Judge. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. At three o'clock this afternoon, Eastern, Phil Giraldi. Why are war crimes rarely prosecuted, and will they be in this case? Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. I'm out.