Judging Freedom - Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer: Ukraine On Life Support

Episode Date: February 8, 2024

Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer: Ukraine On Life SupportSee 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, February 8th, 2024. Colonel Tony Schaefer joins us now. Our apologies for the late start technical issues on our end. Tony, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Welcome here. How do you view the stability of the Ukraine government in light of the publicly stated wishes of President Zelensky to fire General Zelushny to replace him with the young general who's the head of the Ukrainian intelligence, and President Zelensky's failure to do so. What does this tell you about the stability of the government?

Can you hear us, Tony? All right, I guess we're having some... Yeah, you're coming through, Judge. I'll do my best to talk through this technical challenge I'm having this morning. It's notable in the current Ukrainian situation is that the U.S. influence, I think, is on full display. And what I mean by that is that as soon as, you know, Zelensky was being looked at to be fired, as soon as Zelensky had announced that, the person who was most prominent in trying to essentially manage that was Victoria Nuland. And last time I checked, Victoria Nuland is not a member of the Ukrainian government, nor has she been elected to any post within the EU. And I think she's supposed to be the deputy of Tony Blinken.

So to have that level of observable show that she had to go there to essentially approve, disapprove or otherwise manage that removal tells me that essentially Ukraine has become the 51st state. And this was, I think, further exhibited by Joe Biden himself. I have never, I never thought, Judge, I would ever see a U.S. sitting president wearing the flag of another country. And so when Joe Biden actually wore the Ukraine flag and talked about wearing the Ukraine tie and colors, combined with Victoria Nuland literally going to be essentially the person in charge of managing the Zelensky removal, to me, spoke volumes of who's actually in charge of the war and where it's all going. So the fact that the United States is attempting to micromanage Ukraine,

does that tell you that Ukraine is on life support, that it's on its last legs? And if the Republicans persist in their intention in the House not to send $68 billion into a lost cause, that Ukraine will collapse or fold, notwithstanding the $12.5 billion a year that the EU has promised it, that will be too little and too late. I think we're obligated, both as the United States and the EU, to examine this for what it is. Judge, conservatively, I think the United States and the EU have spent upwards of $300 billion over the past 10 years. That is to say that if you add up the direct and indirect support that the EU and the United States have all ponied up, NATO and all that, we're talking about $300 billion. So does anyone really believe that $61 more billion from us or $12 billion per year is going to change any of the likely outcomes

within Ukraine? I don't think so. And I think this is where we have to recognize that whatever's going on relating to Ukraine, throwing more money at it is not the solution. It's just going to prolong the pain and suffering of the Ukrainian people, especially those who are expected to serve. And related to this directly is the legal effort within the Ukraine judge of trying to have a call-up of 500,000 men. This is one of the issues between Zelenskyy and Zelenskyy, by the way. It's recognized now that the human capital necessary to continue the war against Russia is going to take another 500,000 men. So this demonstrates, first off, that the casualties are far higher than the U.S. has been willing to acknowledge. Secondly, you're talking about a country whose birth rate

and actual citizenry, the number of citizens available to serve and the birth rate of those to replace population lost in the conflict, is at a flat line? You were literally looking at the death of, even if there's no further conflict, you're literally looking at the virtual death of Ukraine by the fact it will no longer be able to grow like any other European nation, which, by the way, I don't think Europe, EU, or America really cares about based on the way they're doing this. But my point being is that we've already spent billions of dollars, I mean, hundreds of billions of dollars. Why does anybody think throwing more money into this at this point will have any difference other than to enrich those who are kind of already living off the

project as something that they make money off, especially the U.S. military military uh u.s industrial base i think we're having some trouble but maybe while we address this here's uh joe biden boasting about doing what apparently none of his predecessors has done before, which is wearing on his clothing, as you said, the flag of another country. Cut number eight, Chris. This bill would also address two other important priorities. First, it provides urgent funding for Ukraine. I'm wearing my Ukraine tie, my Ukraine pin, which I've been wearing because they're in dire straits right now

defending themselves against a Russian onslaught. A brutal conquest. The clock is ticking. Every week, every month that passes without new aid, Ukraine means fewer artillery shells, fewer defense, air defense systems, fewer tools for Ukraine to defend itself against this Russian onslaught. Just what Putin wants. Does he really understand what's going on, as you've just been explaining, Tony? I mean, I think what they need is manpower, which they don't have, and with which we can't provide them. Well, we all uh certain folks want us to provide the manpower i mean chuck schumer said as much a few days ago when he said basically if they don't you know this is another blackmail situation if if we don't give them the money that is the let congress appropriate

this we we're going to have to send our our over to fight. This is a complete fiction, Judge. I mean, yeah, Biden gets it, but he's pretending that he doesn't get it. He's trying to drape this in terms that would be most acceptable to the Republicans who are now saying, I don't think this is a good idea. And that, you know, that this is a national security threat. It's not it's not remotely national security threat. I think we're going to see some things in the Tucker Carlson interview. I don't know. I have not talked to Tucker. I've not texted with Tucker. I don't know what's coming out of that. But I think one of the things I've seen, Judge, which is most telling about the media. And this is directly related to your question regarding Biden. The fact that nobody wants to allow any information from Russia and Putin to be presented in a light that is actually supposed to be essentially a counter-argument to what Zelensky says. And I do believe when

Karine Jean-Luc Pierre Picard, whatever her name is, was asked about this a couple of days ago, because one of the reporters, I think James Rosen even jumped in from Newsmax and said, you know, what about this issue of Tucker Carlson saying that you all tried to stop him from going to talk to Putin? Well, it's because the Biden administration, and you saw Joe Biden wearing all the colors, have committed to being essentially part of the actual governance and military operations of Ukraine. Why would you want to let Putin, who is the adversary of Ukraine, actually have any airtime? So it's going to be very interesting because I do believe the Biden administration tried to stop Tucker from going. I don't know this, but I believe it based

on Tucker's public comments. And it's all about trying to maintain a narrative. So that's why Biden, that's a long way of answering a question about Biden. Biden knows what side he's on. He on the side that paid him the most money, which is Ukraine. And that's why they're trying to shove this through. With that said, I think Putin's going to be able to present his side of the case. And, Judge, you and I have talked about this. The Russian people love Putin. He's got something like 80% approval rate. The economy is growing.

While I have problems with their military complex, they have to do with how their weapons are usually inferior and and usually prone to failure. But that has nothing to do with their ability on the long game of bigger issues regarding global stability. I still believe that Ukraine and Russia are a regional conflict. I'm going to say this is probably getting in trouble. This is like West Virginia taking on Virginia. If they were fighting about a border area, you know, we would not expect China to jump into a border dispute between West Virginia and Virginia. And that's why I look at it.

Well, I don't know who you're going to get in trouble with. Certainly not with the people watching now. I mean, it's nicely and beautifully, beautifully put. Look, the Biden administration's policy in Ukraine has been an abysmal failure. It is. One of the Russian businessmen that I interviewed in Moscow, when I asked him what do Russians think of Joe Biden, as soon as the question was translated, there was a big smile from ear to ear because the answer was, Judge, in Moscow, we have a phrase we all use. You're not going to believe it, but everybody says it. Thank you, Joe Biden, because the sanctions have not only failed to harm Russia, they've

actually made it stronger and demonstrated an economic independence that the West didn't know Russia had, and Russia might not have known that Russia had, but which is now flourishing. So you're quite correct about the satisfaction that the Russian people have. Joe Biden couldn't even dream, couldn't even imagine an 80% approval rating. The Russian people have an overwhelming and abiding gratification for President Putin. But back to where we started, isn't Ukraine a lost cause? I mean, Chuck Schumer really couldn't be speaking literally when he said American troops there. That would mean a declaration of war on Russia for which there is no military or national security basis whatsoever.

Well, this goes back to my comment about the Russian military and kind of where they're at versus the vaunted, oh, they're going to challenge NATO. They're not going to challenge NATO. Well, the Russians are on the battlefield and have the potential to return to the offensive. That is to say they're actually doing a great job. I'm saying this as an observer of military action, not because I'm pro-Russian, just saying because I always get in trouble. The Russians are doing a masterful job of moving back forward

and taking back some of the terrain they lost about a year, year and a half ago. So they are doing that. They're doing it because the airport, there's nothing left. Ukraine has nothing left. They're not able to muster sufficient artillery to dissuade them. The Russians decided to expand their security zones because they have that capability now. And so when you look at the amount of effort that it has taken

for Russia just to secure these two provinces and these regions, do you really believe, Judge, they're ready to take on NATO, that they can just turn sway and do a patent like up into to relieve Bastogne and move everything they can? You're 100% correct. I mean, we're going to play. It's insane. We're going to play a clip in just a minute of one of Biden's efforts earlier this week to talk Republicans into supporting the 61 or 68, give or take a few billion, package. But the point is, what are they going to do with it if they don't have the troops to fight? Biden's been saying for two years, Putin has lost, Putin has lost, Putin has lost. It's absurd. Suddenly he says, if Putin takes Ukraine, that implies a view on the part of the president that Russia wants to take Ukraine. The last thing in the world,

what Russia wants is to occupy and have to govern Ukraine. That's correct. Merely wants two things to liberate the Russian parts of Ukraine from Ukraine shelling and to assure that NATO doesn't put offensive weaponry in the western part of Ukraine. That's it. That's what Putin has said from the beginning. He couldn't be clearer. It's rational. We would do the same thing if the Chinese had offensive weapons in Mexico aimed at Dallas. We'd be doing the exact same thing. All right. Number seven, Chris, this is Joe Biden saying, Republicans, history is watching you. Supporting this bill is standing up to Putin. Opposing this bill is playing into his hands.

As I said before, the stakes on this fight extend well beyond Ukraine. If we don't stop Putin's appetite for power and control in Ukraine, he won't limit himself to just Ukraine. And the cost for America and our allies and partners will rise. For those Republicans in Congress who think they can oppose funding for Ukraine and not be held accountable, history is watching. History is watching. A failure to support Ukraine at this critical moment will never be forgotten. This argument, Putin's appetite for power and control of Ukraine, he won't limit himself to just Ukraine.

This is absurd. There can't be any serious thinkers, except perhaps for the neocons with which the president surrounds himself, who believe that. That's true. Well, I think the reason that Biden said that is they threatened to cut off his tapioca pudding for breakfast. And I think Biden serve on the battlefield to help commanders achieve victory. The Russian military is largely made up of Cold War era systems which have been updated. And we've seen on the battlefield, even in Ukraine, they don't stand up well to, to some of the technology the West has now introduced. It's just a fact. So with that, if you just look at the tactics and technology

available to the Russians, the NATO would still do an amazing job at shutting them down. I'm very confident that a lot of our technology that we developed during the Cold War that we've updated could still do a credible job. So I just, I don't see how any Russian military force, no matter how massive, how big, could even have a concept of prevailing. So I just, I think the whole idea that just looking at the, the, the actual details of what the Russian army would have to do, would have to do in the airport,

all of it, they would have to prepare something like at least two years to get in a military force. It's adequately even manned to start contemplating a war against Russia, against the NATO. So it's not possible. It's not remotely possible. And so when you hear Biden say this, talk and Schumer say this, it's science fiction. They live in some alternate universe where the Russians did not fall during the Cold War, and they've maintained the momentum of building weapons since then. It's not in the cards.

The Russians have been able to prevail based on limited operational goals and specifically prepared weapon systems, which will provide them the support and success they need in a defensive role. They have essentially established all these defensive lines which have been very effective with that said simply because they're able to do the the active defense or aggressive defense well doesn't mean they can go back on the offense and to your point they don't want Ukraine they don't want the headaches that would come with an insurgency they were beating insurgency right they don't do well with insurgencies we saw in Afghanistan nor do we by the way so just saying right right but I think you're you're right on the mark Tony let's uh just switch

gears uh for a moment um a drone uh killed three uh reservists from Georgia at some godforsaken place called Tower 22 at the border of Syria and Jordan, and it seriously injured 37 others. The original story was we thought it was one of our own drones returning. It was enemy drone. Now it turns out there were no adequate defenses at all. In response, the President of the United States attacked 85 different targets throughout the Middle East, destroying sheds and warehouses, some military equipment, killing between 25 and 30 civilians. What did he accomplish unless he's looking to expand the war for his friend, Prime Minister Netanyahu? Well, I don't know what he accomplished.

This is one of the things I'll be talking about on the network and later today. So let's start with Pat Ryder. I love General Ryder. Pat and I worked together. This is a spokesperson for the Pentagon. Yeah, Major General Pat Ryder. Full disclosure, Pat and I worked together to produce chain of command. You can see the little package over the top of my head there.

That was something that was produced with Nat Geo back 10 years ago, not 10 years ago, anyway, back in 2019, 2020, where we focused on the Pentagon's effort to defeat ISIS. So that's what we documented. So I've known Pat a while. So let's start with Pat's press conference a few days ago. He talked about the fact that there have been additional attacks that basically weren't acknowledged, and he acknowledged them. He said basically after the initial round of U.S. attacks against these things, we were already getting attacked. members of the media asked Pat, well, do you think deterrence has failed again? And Pat was very reluctant to ask. I would have a similar, I don't know if I'd want to answer that, but it's not really working. So whatever they hit didn't have the effect to reestablish deterrence. I'm just saying that because there's been additional suicide drone attacks within the last few hours

of the time we're taping this. So the thing I'm told by my sources, and again, Pat kind of said this, that we're hitting old training camps. 90% of all the targeting packages that I'm aware of were against essentially holes in the desert or places that the IRGC used at some point in the past. That doesn't say it's nothing. It's just like a spot where you have picnic benches and they once had a class on how to clean your AK-47. So that's the issue is like, okay, you're hitting targets that really don't have anything there. And I think it's designed to create fear that they will. It's like a shooting. It's like a police officer doing a warning shot is the way I interpret it. So about one in 10 attacks actually hit something real.

And then they did the micro attack or whatever, the Hezbollah guy, the assassination in Baghdad yesterday. So at this point, I don't believe there's been much. You and I can disagree on where we got to go next, I think. But at this point, it's been ineffectual and has not really moved the ball one way or another. The Iranians are going to continue to encourage their proxies to attack. The Israelis are going to continue on the offensive. Netanyahu has rejected the peace proposal. So I think there's a net zero here, although we've wasted a lot of ordinance and fired at a lot of things,

to no effect. Do you think that the same neocon mentality that wants another $60 billion for Ukraine and wants to micromanage the government there, the Victoria and Newland, Lindsey Graham mentality, wants to expand a war. I mean, Senator Graham, I realize he's an outlier, and I don't know who takes him seriously, but Senator Graham has been saying publicly, I assume privately as well, to the White House, bomb Tehran. Yeah. Is this a serious mentality around the president? Well, let's look at why we still have forces in Syria. I think your question answers itself.

So we have forces still in Syria, despite a lot of President Trump, one of them pulled out. Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joe Dunford, General Dunford President Trump wanted them pulled out, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joe Dunford, General Dunford wanted them pulled out. They didn't get pulled out. Why? Why do we still have forces? And you and I both know, Judge, while you've not necessarily been on missions, you know that we can do some amazing missions from standoff positions. We can go places and do things. So the idea of having static military facilities set up in the middle of the desert, kind of marginal. I don't know why. And so the other folks saw that. So why are we there? Well, I think we're there for the very thing you're trying to talk about here. There almost is an encouraging of tripwires so that

people will, we get hit and we have to respond. And I think that's why they're still there because ultimately the neocons not only want an expanded goal with Iran, they still want to take out Assad. They still want Syria removed from under Assad. So these are all goals, which I don't agree with. I don't think they're in our national security interest. And frankly, at this point, even if you want to state those as policy objectives, the Saudis have issues with the Iranians, let them do it. I'm going to say this and get in trouble, I know. The Russians are in Syria. The Russians can go after ISIS since they're an ally of Assad. And this is one of the reasons. But we need to be there because the Russians are there. So you used an interesting phrase a few moments ago, tripwire.

Does the United States of America intentionally put troops into harm's way as bait to justify further military activity? Well, I can only speak from what I know. And so I know based on personal discussions I had during the period when ISIS was essentially defeated, there was a concern about what do we do with the forces now in Syria? Because we went with our allies, the Kurds. Kurds did a wonderful job. Don't take anything I'm saying being negative of the Kurds. The Kurds were our key and essential ally in defeating ISIS. But then once we did that, once we got that task done and we saw that essentially governance is the key to stopping terrorists, the absence of governance, ungoverned spaces are like a petri dish for terrorist organizations. So you want governance to be there. So once governance was on the track of being restored, our job there was kind of done. And so I'm for intelligence collection operations. You know, I'm a spy. I'm all for having guys and gals out there, you know, kind of hidden within the tapestry of what's going on, just so we know. That's one thing, but offensive weaponry and 57,000 troops,

two-thirds of them in countries that have told us to leave, is quite another. I agree. And so this is why I don't know. Again, I'm of a belief that we need to only be where we need to be. Being expeditionary for purposes of just being somewhere when people make you a target, it's not wise. That happened to us in Afghanistan. We've talked about this. My book talks about it, Operation Dark Heart. We were done by 2004. We could have really been done if we didn't have knuckleheads like certain generals I argue with in there.

We could have really just, you know, ended. But with that said, the purpose of our righteous anger of going after al-Qaeda leadership was completed by 2005. And everything after 2005 in Afghanistan essentially was nation building, which is not our job. And again, I would argue that's why we're in Iraq. That's why we're in these other places, because they use nation building as a method to keep us insinuated in situations we should not have to be in. So I'm not for maintaining the high level of troop deployments in these regions that we have. Tony Schaefer, thank you very much. Whatever those technical problems were in the beginning, they're gone. And much appreciate your time. Look forward to seeing you at the beginning, they're gone. And much appreciate your time. Look forward to seeing you at the same time next Thursday. All the best.

Thank you. Thank you. Coming up later today, Kyle Anzalone on the anti-war wrap-up. Professor John Mearsheimer on where does Israel go from here in light of what Saudi Arabia said two days ago and Prime Minister Netanyahu's rebuff to Saudi Arabia yesterday. And Max Blumenthal, can the American media be trusted when it comes to Ukraine and Israel? Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.