Judging Freedom - Lt Col. Tony Shaffer : If French Troops Fight Russians

Episode Date: March 28, 2024

Lt Col. Tony Shaffer : If French Troops Fight RussiansSee 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 Thursday, March 28th, 2024, Holy Thursday in the Christian world. Tony Schaefer joins us now. Tony, it's a pleasure, my dear friend. Welcome back to the show. Thanks, Judgeaefer joins us now. Tony, it's a pleasure, my dear friend. Welcome back to the show. Thanks, Judge. Good to be back. Thank you for having me. If you've ever seen the original Star Trek episode, Spock's Brain, well, they kidnapped me and took me to another planet and used my brain to run their planet, but I'm back.

Okay. They put your brain back together properly. They did, believe it or not. It's better than ever. I do want to talk to you about President Macron's threats to send troops to Ukraine, but would want to discuss breaking news or more recent news first. Let's start with the UN Security Council vote calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. There have been five of these votes. The United States vetoed the

first three. It sponsored the fourth, which was so lukewarm and so ambiguous that the Russians and the Chinese, in my view, quite properly vetoed it. On the fifth one, it didn't veto it. It abstained. So the vote was 14 to 0 to 1. It's an abstention. The minute the vote was counted, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Linda Thomas-Greenfield, said it was non-binding, and Admiral Kirby in D.C. said it was non-binding. What is your take on this? What is the value of this if it's non-binding? I don't think it is non-binding under the UN Charter as a lawyer, but from your experience in the military and the intelligence and the diplomatic worlds, what do you think? Three words. Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota.

This is what this is all about. That's why it's so unfocused. And we'll do this one day and we'll do something else the next. Judge, this has nothing to do with benefiting Gaza or the Gazan citizens. This has nothing to do with supporting Israelis. This is all about domestic politics at this point. And they're all over the map. Literally, John Kirby is asked the question about this thing. And the first thing he says, because the Israelis said, oh, this is a change of policy. Oh, it's not a change of policy. Am I doing a good John Kirby? It's not a change of policy. And it was a change of policy because to your point, previously they had vetoed the first three and the one that they proposed was so kind of like, are you kidding me? I mean, imagine this, the perception is at the time, the Russians and Chinese are more supportive of the Israelis than

America because they vetoed the resolution. It's just, it's just, everything is a political triangulation and there's no fortitude regarding what Biden or the Democrats really believe. You got Chuck Schumer out saying one thing on the floor of the Senate, trying to literally dismantle the Israeli government, no matter how you feel about the situation. I don't think the United States has the right to try to encourage the change of leadership in a foreign country. We could agree to disagree on that, but I don't think Schumer was right. And then the issue regarding what is you just outlined is like, what exactly is the authority if you, if you. All right. So as I, as I take away the lesson from your answer is

there's no intellectual honesty here. There's no international diplomacy. It's all, how can we get votes for Joe Biden biden in three states that he has to carry in order to defeat donald trump is that it yes sir that's it that's it and that's and again i don't think i'm the only one that feels this way if you just study the facts no you're not you're not the only one that feels this way i think it's a very astute observation uh tony but how does the rest of the world feel when we flip-flop like this, or it appears to flip-flop, and then when the U.S. Hold off. Chris, do we have the montage?

We're going to play a montage. It's a little over a minute. It's 25 seconds or so from each of the three ambassadors that spoke right after the vote at the Security Council. First, the American ambassador, then the Israeli ambassador, then the Palestinian ambassador. I want your take, Tony. Watch this. We fully support some of the critical objectives in this non-binding resolution, and we believe it was important for the Council to speak out and make clear that our ceasefire must,

any ceasefire must come with the release of all hostages. The resolution just voted upon makes it seem as if the war started by itself. Well, let me set the record straight. Israel did not start this war, nor did Israel want this war. This must be a turning point. This must lead to saving lives on the ground. This must signal the end of this assault of atrocities against our people.

A nation is being murdered. A nation is being dispossessed. All right, the last speaker was the Palestinian observer. He's not an ambassador yet because Palestine is not recognized universally as a country. But why would she say it's non-binding? Triangulation. Let's be clear. By the way, just full disclosure, I watched a video last night from Alan Dershowitz. I don't know how you feel about Alan, Judge, but he was just in Israel. And one of the things he says critical of this resolution is that as much as anything,

there's no mention of Hamas. So on one hand, the United States says it's not binding. One of the criticisms of the thing is, you know, look, you don't even mention who the bad guys are. Well, then why didn't the United States veto it? Well, I don't know. I mean, this is where, again, there's even the Biden administration recognizes that she even said there's some elements we find that are important, but she didn't really define what they are. This is the worst kind of milquetoast diplomatic effort to essentially create the perception that the United States is involved, but doing everything they can to backpedal and stay out of it. The United States is a passive. Basically, they're a passenger in their own car at this point because they're allowing circumstance to dictate to them their actions.

I think it's a bad way of doing it. I'm a Reagan guy, as you know, and I don't think Reagan would have ever done anything like this. I agree with you on Reagan. But what about Netanyahu's temper tantrum, calling back his team as they're on their way to the airport. And then two days later,

he changed his mind and said, okay, we need the invitation again. Now we want to come. Is all of this political theater on both sides of the Atlantic? I think it is. Yeah, and look, Alan Dershowitz, again,

referring to giving him full credit, this is not something I got directly. He said, obviously, to your point, there's a lot of dissension within the political body of the Israelis. That is to say, the citizens are really torn about what direction to go with the government. The one thing they're unified on is they want Hamas gone. And so, yeah, that should be the focus. But everything else, the question of Netanyahu staying or going,

they see what you see, they see what we see. So I think that disruption at the top is not helpful by Netanyahu or our side. In my judgment, you know, this is akin to the British, you know, this is the analogy I've been using lately is business like Tony Blair and the British deciding had George Bush and Dick Cheney, they're knuckleheads. Well, I guess they are. But it's time for them to go and be removed during 2003 after the 9-11 attacks.

That's the way I'm looking at this. We just need to stay out of their business and try to get this done. And by the way, overlapping and contradictory messaging doesn't help anybody. It just makes everybody look stupid. On that, I agree with you. But before we leave this topic, I want you to watch.

This is number 20, Chris. Matthew Miller, the spokesperson for the State Department, being absolutely grilled and dismantled by a member of the press corps. I'm not sure who this fellow is. We have shown him grilling. He's Miller's beast in the night. We've shown him grilling Miller before, and he's quite good. Watch this. And so what do you expect now to happen as a result of the passage of this resolution? So I think you expect that Israel is going to announce a ceasefire? I do not. Do you expect that Hamas is going to release hostages?

So I'm glad you mentioned that because one of the things that we have objected to for some time is that most of the people that call for a ceasefire, we believe, are calling for Israel to unilaterally stop operations and not calling for Hamas to agree to a ceasefire where they would release hostages. Well, I think it goes both ways, doesn't it? It could. Wait, wait, wait. No, but the resolution today is a non-binding resolution. Okay, so what's the point? Why did you abstain? Why didn't you veto?

So I think that separate and apart from this resolution, we have active ongoing negotiations to try to achieve what this resolution calls for, which is an immediate ceasefire and the release of hostages. I can't say that this resolution is going to have any impact on those negotiations, but those negotiations are ongoing. They've been ongoing over the weekend and they've made progress. So I don't expect you to answer this now, but to me, you just stick this in your pocket. If that's the case, what the hell is the point of the UN or the UN Security Council? So we think it plays an important role. It does.

Even though its action does absolutely nothing. And that you're going to get what you would like to see not out of the UN, but out of discussions in Doha? So we believe it's important that the UN speak and the UN Security Council speak on matters of international security. It's why we've been engaged in this process. It's why we thought we were going to have a successful vote on Friday that Russia and China, unfortunately, and quite cynically vetoed. But I do believe that ultimately, if we're able to achieve a ceasefire, and the release of hostages is going to come not through a UN process,

but through the process with which we've been engaged, yes, in Doha. I saw your reaction to that question. What the hell is the value of the UN if all this stuff is non-binding? It is non-binding. And then just the way that the questions are asked, the answers are contradictory. And so it's like people see this, Judge. I mean, international, you know, the people who lead other nations see this, and they're scratching their head, and they don't know what they can depend on or count on or anticipate out of this administration because it's all virtue signaling. This is another version of woke. I've said that woke goes to war,

is exhibited in the Ukraine war, and this is woke goes to the ranks of diplomacy and this there's no cohesive or underlying uh policy that that actually attaches to the issues and drives the policy to achieve something he even said the simple act of of having a conversation is an accomplishment what do you what do you do with that if that's their objective is oh we've had a conversation we've had talks and we feel that's progress. Oh, okay. All right. I'm just dealing with Chris here, my dog. Let's switch gears.

All right. Can you connect any dots between Victoria Nuland saying we have a nasty surprise for Mr. Putin and the attack on the Crocus concert hall? Well, look, let's put the foundation where I think it needs to start from. Go ahead. 2014. I think there's ample evidence based on New York Times reporting that the United States and CIA have been deeply involved in the direction of the war from day one. Some would say that Victoria Nuland and other folks, Mark Milley, were directing the war.

I mean, Mark Milley wasn't there in 2014, but Nuland was. And so what I'm saying is everything I – let me be careful here because I don't want to get you or me in trouble. The everything we've seen transpire since 2013, 2014 was a construct created by the neocons for purposes of moving Ukraine out from Russian influence into the EU sphere of influence and essentially becoming a resource,

I'll just say resource hog, a nation which would be essentially carved up and used resource-wise by the Europeans, both avoiding use of Russian oil and gas and theoretically collapsing the Soviet Union, the Russian Republic, sorry. But that's where it starts. So if you look at recent reporting, and Jack Prasovic and I have talked about this on his show, about, yeah, we were correct about a lot of the things we've been saying about this issue, about CIA being involved, Victoria Nuland. So if you accept the premise of where we started, you accept the premise of the New York Times reporting, which I'm often skeptical of, but in this case, I think they're accurate. I think they were told what to say.

They were given information about the CIA bases and CIA activities. The Newland was the architect not only of the foundation of how we started, but those things that she said in Kiev where she said Mr. Putin is going to get nasty surprises. Well, he got some nasty surprises. And the guys who did the nasty surprise were heading for the border near Kursk and Belgorod. So I don't know. You know, I'm a retired intelligence officer, but those pieces seem to be kind of pointing in a certain direction. Your former colleagues and their mentality, the mentality of the intelligence community. Yeah.

CIA, MI6, maybe even Mossad. You're familiar with all this. You were part of that for a good part of your career. You worked with those people. You probably still have friends there is there a jack devine mentality there that would uh allow for the slaughter of innocent civilians judge now i don't want to blame jack i'm do i just know i understand what that end that end of the intelligence community operative end the dark side of the intelligence community, operative end, the dark side of the intelligence community. Would Americans and British allow, by indifference or by active planning, the slaughter of young Russian people at a concert?

We, as a Western intelligence conglomerate, have allowed for the death of civilians since I've been in. And it became more severe after 2008, after Obama came in. Obama was the first guy, whoever I think openly assassinated U.S. citizens. Anwar al-Awlaki. And I still believe, and I think you and I have spoken about this, there's nothing in the Constitution that permits the U.S. government to kill people even overseas. I think that that was something that was indeed a war crime. And Mama should be correct. Correct. And agreed. We have spoken about it.

We have written about it. It was reprehensible. But he's he'll be scot free on it, even though there's no statute of limitations. But your question, no, I think there's a number of folks like Jack Devine who would gladly just go do something if they thought it scored what they believe policy points relating to a specific implementation of the stabilization of a country. All right. Here's Maria Zakharova, number 19, Chris, the Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman yesterday. In order to deflect suspicion from this very collective West, from Washington, London, Berlin, which literally discussed in direct text, as I said, possible tourist attacks in our country, Paris and other NATO countries, they had to find something, anything, something, some explanation. So they resorted to ISIS, took this Trump card out of their sleeve, so to speak. And the White House, together with the State Department, declared at the Maidstat that Ukraine had nothing to do with it." On the basis of what data? On the basis of what information did they draw that conclusion?

It is completely unclear. Only one thing is clear. They began to excuse the Kiev regime in order to excuse themselves because everyone understands perfectly well that there is no independent Kiev regime without Western financial support and military aid to this regime. I think the last statement she made, Tony, if you'll allow me, is the most significant.

They began to excuse the Kiev regime in order to excuse themselves because everyone understands perfectly well that there to excuse the Kiev regime in order to excuse themselves because everyone understands perfectly well that there is no independent Kiev regime without Western financial support and military aid to that regime. Yeah. So, well, look, let's just look at how the messaging was done on the attack from the U.S. linking to Ukraine. The United States was the biggest defender in saying, oh, there's no indication Ukraine was involved in the attack. Really? You're speaking for the Ukrainians? Think about this. We, the United States, speaks for Ukraine all the time. And last time I checked, they're not Texas, they're not Iowa, they're not a state of the United States, they're not Puerto

Rico, and yet somehow we are speaking for them. So judge for yourself, dear viewer, if you think that her statement is correct relating to who actually speaks for Ukraine. And it's very interesting that she and yeah, I think the fact that we have resources that we've been providing. And again, I'm on the record saying I'm not for that 61 billion they want to send over there because it's going to be used for the same stupid stuff to achieve nothing of significance within the context of stability for the region. I think she's correct. And at this point, I think there's a regime change coming. I think Zelensky's days are numbered. I think he's just not the good puppet that he used to be. As cute as he is in olive drab, I think they're looking for someone who would do a better job of acting as the president of Ukraine.

All right. Last topic. President Macron has been threatening to send troops to Romania to prepare to enter Ukraine. First, he said 20,000. Then he... First, he said 2,000. Then he said 20,000, then he first he said 2,000, then he said 20,000,

then he was back to 2,000. Chris, can you play that tape, please? We are convinced that Russia's defeat is essential for security and stability in Europe. What's at stake right now is on the one hand the war in Ukraine, meaning Ukraine's ability to endure any new Russian offensive or threats in the coming months, but also the ability of Europeans to define their own collective security. There is no consensus right now about sending in ground troops in an official, endorsed and sanctioned manner. But in reality, nothing should be ruled out. We will do whatever it takes to ensure that Russia cannot win this war.

Nothing should be ruled out. After that, he said 2,000. Then he mused at 20,000 as long as they were joined by another 40,000 from other NATO countries, then he's back to two. What will happen in your view, let me finish, if 2,000 French troops show up in Ukraine, wouldn't they be in Putin's crosshairs immediately? Oh, absolutely. And I think, Judge, that's why Macron's saying this, because there have been significant strikes by the Russians in so-called volunteer zones where foreign troops were attacked and killed. I think right now Macron is kind of letting the public in

on the fact that French have been fighting there already. French have, French Foreign Legion and other fighters, I think that have been there more than advising. I think they've been fighting there already. French have, French Foreign Legion and other fighters, I think, that have been there more than advising. I think they've been out there doing actual combat. So I think this is almost like he's trying to create conditions for the French public to not freak out when they find out French Foreign Legion has been there and create conditions for more. It's like, yeah, we've been there and here's, we want to put some more in. But I can tell you this based on everything I've read and looked at, nobody else in the EU is digging this. Nobody wants to do it. The Germans are against it. I think for all the right reasons, I think the Polish are reticent and this is the French going on their own. And I could say some really

bad things about the French right now regarding their war fighting capability, but I won't, because I know we want to be serious this time in the morning. But the bottom line is, Macron is looking to try to involve NATO. NATO is not digging it. NATO's saying, yeah, I don't think it's going to happen. But I think as much as anything, this is Macron trying to cover his own butt

because they've, you know, they got people there right now. By the way, not only the French. Everybody's got folks on the ground the french everybody's got folks on the ground there we've got folks on the ground there they don't we don't they don't want to talk about it but think about all these high-tech weapon systems this is why the uh the germans won't deploy their latest missile system because the they recognize the germans recognize the moment you deploy this high-tech weapon system on behalf of ukraine you're going to have germans there Germans are going to get killed. So other European nations are a little bit smarter than the French are about this. But I think Macron is way out of his element here,

but I think he's doing it because I think he has to say something to the French people to prepare them for what's about to come regarding French involvement. Last question yeah would he not obviously not legally but just politically want or need joe biden's approval before he put troops on the ground and you're yeah i mean the it would be a definite escalation for an official above board deployment all these countries we're talking about all have their clandestine and special operations nonsense going on. I mean, look, as you said, I was part of it. I've seen it.

I've been involved. With that said, it's a complete different ballgame if the French put, you know, the 13th Regiment, the Dragones Perichutes, one of their actual special operations units, on the front line to go kill people. That's a different ballgame. And I can tell you from the comments Russia has made, they're going to kill them. As a matter of fact, there will be a priority to be killed because they're going to be fresh. They're going to be coming in and do things. Macron tried to soften this judge by saying, oh, no, no, these are going to be support troops.

We're going to put them in the rear so Ukrainian troops can go to the front. I don't buy any of that. This will be an instant escalation. I think this is why the EU and NATO is saying we're not going to do that. And I don't think – and he would want – I think he floated that balloon with Biden. And Biden said, do whatever you want, but we're not going. And I think that's not the right answer he was looking for. Macron. Tony Schaefer, thank you, my dear friend. Appreciate all your time.

Happy Easter to you and your family, too. Thanks, Judge. See you soon. Of course, we have a very full day coming up for you at nine o'clock. Eastern Patrick Lancaster live from Russia, the Russian side of what Ukraine says is Ukraine and Russia says is Russia. At one o'clock, ask the judge, ask me anything you want about the U.S. Constitution or about the topics that we discuss on air. At two o'clock, Colonel Larry Wilkerson. At three o'clock. Kyle Anzalone at four o'clock. The boys, Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.