Judging Freedom - How Ukraine is Causing World Power Shifting - Tony Schaffer

Episode Date: March 30, 2023

Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, March 30, 2023. It's about 3.35 in the afternoon on the east coast of the United States. Tony Schaefer joins us now. Tony, thanks very much as always for coming back to our cameras. Let's start with some breaking news and tell me if you think this is credible or not. Admiral Kirby, John Kirby, the spokesperson for President Biden's National Security Council, just announced that Russia is so running out of ammunition to use in the conflagration in Ukraine that it is purchasing, buying, getting, taking, bartering ammunition from North Korea. Is this credible, Tony?

I don't doubt that the North Koreans may be providing ammunition because they're all kind of working together behind the scenes with that said. It's kind of a you know working together behind the scenes with that said um it's kind of like and so I don't think the Russians are all that desperate about anything everything indicates to me uh judge everything I read everything I I've uh checked out is that the Russians have moved their economy to a wartime economy that is to say they've taken and activated those elements uh that were essentially created during the Cold War as part of the Soviet Union. They maintained them, and now you're using them. And they've now not only ramped up to produce all the ammunition they need, they're now assembling tank factories, which are going to put out about 1,500 tanks over the next year. Tony, I don't know if Admiral Kirby has any credibility when he makes these comments, which are obviously intended for PR consumption. They don't affect the field of battle.

Right. Well, I think that's the thing. Kirby is trying to play to an audience of the West. Putin has decided that he's going to play to the audience of his people, Russia, and the rest of the world. And so what Kirby is saying right now does not have any credibility anywhere outside of the U.S. mainstream media. Everybody else, I think, would ignore this statement on its face. Here's a tape of Secretary of Defense Austin, who's showing what a terrible liar he can be. He's being interrogated by Senator Roger Wicker of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Take a listen. With regard to your optimism about Ukraine having the upper hand, that is what you told me yesterday. It is. Now, what I was about to say, Senator, is that Ukrainians have inflicted significant casualties on the Russians, and they have depleted their inventory of armored vehicles in a way that

no one would have ever imagined. And so now we see Russia reaching for T-54s and T-55 tanks because of the level of damage that Ukrainians have inflicted on them. Reaching for those tanks demonstrates what to you, sir? It demonstrates that their capability is waning. We've continued to witness them be challenged with artillery munitions and other things, and they're reaching out to Iran, to North Korea. Do you believe there's a real chance for significant Ukrainian advancements between now and the beginning of winter. I believe there's a chance and we're doing everything that we can do to ensure that they have their best opportunity to be successful.

Believable or not, Tony? No, look, I know General Austin. I worked for him when he was a brigadier general and his credibility has never been great in the military. Remember, Judge, very briefly, he actually was the one who was helping cook the books regarding the so-called success of the Obama administration against ISIS. It was he and Scotty Barrier. Hey, Scotty, if you're listening, Scotty is now the director of DIA. So I'm just telling you. All right. So Scotty's a three star now. He's a three star.

He's a lieutenant general. And I know Scotty you. All right. So Scotty's a three star now. He's a three star. He's a lieutenant general. And I know Scotty from being in combat. Scotty's credibility, it goes as far as whoever he thinks he can suck up to to get his next promotion. Just saying. Well, so, you know, Ritter says that or Scott Ritter, our mutual friend and colleague, argues that Secretary Austin is no longer a four-star, no longer has loyalty to the military. His loyalty is to Raytheon, his last employer before Joe Biden tapped him, and to Joe Biden. His loyalty is not to the truth. Right. No, it's not been for a long time.

He's under oath and he's testifying to uh to to congress remember what roger clemens someone asked me who's the last time somebody was prosecuted for lying to congress it was roger clemens the great yankee pitcher who was accused of lying about the contents of his urine to congress right first trial was a hung jury second trial he was acquitted he was found not guilty but they don't prosecute people for lying to Congress and they never prosecute their own. The feds don't prosecute other feds for lying to Congress. No, of course. No, this this maybe General Austin would be better off having your analysis because maybe he's actually on drugs. I'm just saying because, no, he's what he's saying is patently, provably false.

The other thing, Judge, remember, I've been in hearings. I've testified at hearings. I've seen people across from me on the same panel lie in front of Congress. I've been inside of closed hearings and heard generals lie in front of me. So lying is nothing new. Generals, after a certain point, most generals, not all, there's a few I believe are honest, and I deal with them on a regular basis, will fundamentally shape their commentary around the political reality they're trying to achieve rather than the facts on the ground of what we need to analyze. That's the

way they operate now. And to your point, General Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial congressional complex, and Austin is a product of that complex. They used to call it the military-industrial-congressional complex. And Austin is a product of that complex. They used to call it the military-industrial complex. You are quite correct, Tony, in my view, to add Congress. You might also add banking because, you know, the banks, the banksters make a fortune on this all the time. They get free money from the Fed. They lend it to the manufacturers. The manufacturers sell it to the time. They get free money from the Fed. They lend it to the manufacturers. The

manufacturers sell it to the government. The government uses fake money from the Fed to pay the manufacturers. They use the fake money to pay back the banks. It's almost absurd. In the process, of course, the executives become fabulously rich. The taxpayers become fabulously poor. Generations of taxpayers as yet unborn have more debt to pay because of inflation and interest rates. And this just keeps going on and on and on. And I guess Lloyd Austin exemplifies Tony. I don't want to dump on him. I understand he's a nice guy. He's a serious family man. He's a serious Catholic, whatever. But I guess he exemplifies all of this at its worst.

So two points real quick. Look, the idea that any money that we generate as a people, we, taxpayers, is at this point harassment because the government prints all the money you just talked about. All that money that's circulating, that's monopoly money. And at this point in time, Judge, they don't need our tax dollars. that's harassment because they simply take that to keep us down to the but back on austin real quick look austin um was someone who was probably good as an officer up to the 06 colonel level uh once he hit colonel uh he exceeded Maslow's hierarchy of achievement. He exceeded his ability to perform at a higher level. And this has happened overall in the military over and over, Judge, where someone is picked because of their political reliability rather than their military expertise.

And Austin is in that category. What are your sources telling you about Bakhmut? We are hearing that it is in the process, finally, of falling to the Russians. I think it's not an issue of falling. I think the Russians have allowed the Ukrainians to uselessly push multiple combat units into the cauldron for purposes of reducing the Ukrainians when I hear Austin talk about this depletion of Russian ammunition like really there's they're lobbing 30 000 rounds a day and they're not looking like they're going to slow down when the Ukrainians can't do that and then as any time the the Ukrainians should set up for an attack they're instantly wiped out by this very sophisticated and effective ISR intelligence surveillance system that the Russians have put together. So it's kind of like, yeah, I don't think they're in any rush to kind of close that

off since basically they're allowing the Ukrainians to bleed out. Why would you want to? It's an interesting observation, Tony, that the Russian military knows it has Bakhmut surrounded and knows it can tighten that noose whenever it wants, but it wants the Ukrainians to deplete ammunition and human resources before it closes the noose. Remember, the Russians have mobilized a great amount, about 25% of their available reserves for purposes of going into to deal with whatever they're going to do next. They're not using those. But right now, Judge, the Ukrainians are pushing everything they've got. The Russians have adequate logistics to resupply what they lose. The Ukrainians don't. So it's kind of like, yeah, keep throwing them our way. We know you can't replenish them and we can't. So why rush closing off an open wound if they continue to bleed out?

How much longer do you think this will go on? As Zelensky said today, I think in an interview, we're doing this for purposes of trying to prove a point that we can hold terrain. And it's like, that's a big vanity project, Judge, if I ever heard one. That's not military strategy. Here's an interview he gave two or three days ago on a train to an American interview. I don't know who she is or the network for which she works, or I'd give them credit for it. She asks him some pretty good questions. I'd like your opinion on, it's in English, I'd like your opinion on his responses.

Is this part of why you are fighting so hard in Bakhmut? Because a lot of military analysts will say that strategically it's not that significant. Because that will be a victory for him. Any victory. Yes, he will sell this victory. He will sell this victory to West, to his society,

to China, to Iran, to all the countries, to Brazil, to Latin America countries, not to Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia. Of course, they really understand, you know, from details, and they feel this dangerous because they're neighbors.

But he will sell it to his society. That was the first step. Now, wait, wait a minute, wait a minute. I will have a decision with Ukraine. Then another step, another step, another step. Putin wants to take Bakhmut because he wants to sell the victory to the East? I think that's baloney. I think that's what Zelensky is trying to sell the West, to keep the gravy train coming. Look, Judge, Putin's already made his case to the rest of the world he's basically

trying to show that he's the adult in a room he's working with xi the other adult in the room the chinese and they're trying to show restraint they're trying to let uh ukraine use this amount the significant amount of military force they've acquired through the west uselessly uh believe trust me on this uh if i had the chance to have, if I was facing off with a neighbor and I knew he had a lot of weapons and I knew that he was shooting at me constantly, degrading that, before I take any action, I'm going to want to degrade everything he's got before I go on the offensive. So this is not hard to figure out. I think Zelensky is playing to a Western audience who he's, by the way, I saw something today where he, the, I think it was the

Austrian parliament walked out of a speech he was giving. Tony, you're reading my mind. I was just going to ask you about that. One third of the Austrian parliament, it didn't give him the standing ovation the U.S. Congress got. They literally turned their backs on him and walked out. Now, shouldn't, shouldn't his intel have told him that that would happen? And maybe this is not the time to give that speech. So now you have Austria and Hungary right in the middle of Europe publicly rejecting Zelensky and either remaining neutral Austria or siding with the Russians Hungary. I would think he's regretting having given that speech and the horrible press he's getting as we speak in Europe. This is the danger of believing your own press. People on our side do it too. Dave Petraeus and

others have believed their own press and significantly fail on the other end of it. This is what's going on. Now, Judge, the Europeans probably, like you and I and our other colleagues who talk about this all the time, recognize that there's going to be no victory unless NATO, and I mean ground troops, roll in to help Zelensky. It's a numbers game. I'm not pro-Russian. I'm pro-reality. All right, Tony, is there the political will in Europe for NATO, ground troops, German, French, Polish? Maybe there isn't Poland.

Italy? No, there isn't. No, no, no, no. The Poles have their own attitude about this. The president of Poland wants to invade Crimea. Right. Different attitude. Different reasons.

That's right. But that's different. Yes. But does American intel, your former colleagues, recognize enough to tell their bosses in Langley, this is going south without NATO troops on the ground, and you guys, Langley and the West Wing, have to tell us if NATO troops on the ground are going to make it? I have a small intelligence team that publishes a report every day. I look at it, and I understand effectively what's going on. Effectively, the Russians have amassed an amazing amount of weapons that they've not used yet. Basically, you've got probably a tank army or two, a significant amount of force ready to take on, at best, reinforced brigades of the Ukrainian military. And by the way, if they got back,

moved back, the Ukrainians, they can't hold it. They don't have manpower sufficient to set up logistics trains to go in and hold the territory they're trying to maintain. So again, it's a numbers game at this point. And those who are wise in Europe and greater Europe outside of Poland recognize there's nothing to be had from going to total war. Plus, the other thing is, again, our economies, all the NATO economies are not prepared to go to full war footing. We don't have an industry that can switch over and become ready to manufacture in mass what we would need to prevail in a war against Russia. We're just not prepared, and nobody's willing to do that preparation. Tony, the argument you just made is articulate and compelling as it is. Is that

argument making its way to President Biden's ear? Well, so I know- You have a lot of friends on both sides of the political aisle, active duty, former, et cetera. I don't want you to reveal any secrets. Do you know if any sensible argument is being discussed in the White House. The military leadership I still am friendly with recognize everything we've just said. They know it. But the problem is when it gets to the general officer level, it gets modified and mollified. It's translated in such a way to only present good news and hope. And you and I both know, Judge, hope ain't a strategy. And these generals ought to know better. But no, I think it's going to Biden is we can still do this. We can still pull it off. And I

think it's, again, encouraging the politicians who have an agenda, who want to have Ukraine come into the EU to be part of the EU and NATO, to have a false sense of hope. So I think as much as I criticize Biden and his inner circle, I think that they're being told, they're being, things are being blown up their skirt, so to speak, right now. Now, last series of questions. This is, I'm going to prevail on your political side, which I know also exists, aside from your intel and your military side. Joe Biden doesn't have an off ramp. He doesn't have he doesn't have a safe, politically credible way out of this.

Am I right? You're right. And they but they've they've went past at least five off ramps. They've been offered, Judge. They've been offered a number of face saving and otherwise good options to examine how they can enter into, to do three things. First, enter into a negotiation, an issue where they actually sit down and say,

look, we recognize that the invasion's wrong from our perspective. I'm saying from their perspective, I'm not justifying, I'm speaking as a third party, that they could say, you know, but it's time for us to talk. They could do that. Secondly, they could have gone to NATO and said, we got to go with Poland and talk to Putin about do you intend on going past Ukraine? Just have the conversation. And I think that would have opened the door for some good dialogue between both sides, which, again, is a type of offering to at least de-conflict, bring the temperature down in the room. And third, of course, China. China's offered a viable path forward with the 12 points.

They should have got ahead of a judge. They could have said, well, we know the Chinese are about to introduce 12 points. We've got our points and here's the things we needed. And they didn't do it. They have sat back and been, they are a passenger in their own clown car of freedom. Next week, I want to pick your brain on China. Tony Schaefer, always a pleasure. Very much appreciated by our audience. And of course, by me, thanks very much for joining us. Thank you, sir. Always great to join you. Of course. If you like what you just saw, like and subscribe. More as we get it. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.