Judging Freedom - LtCOL. Tony Shaffer: Can Trump End Ukraine War in 24 Hours?

Episode Date: November 26, 2024

LtCOL. Tony Shaffer: Can Trump End Ukraine War in 24 Hours?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 Tuesday, November 26th, 2024, Thanksgiving week here in the U.S. Colonel Tony Schaefer joins us now. Colonel Schaefer, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Can you tell us if the use of the Arestnik missile by the Russians has continued to sink in? Do the elites in Europe and do the elites in the American State Department understand the significance of this tool available to President Putin? No, they have not. Nobody in the West seems to be getting the memo. The British just proposed, Keir Stalmer proposed, I think it was yesterday, that they deploy British and French troops to Ukraine as a tripwire so they can activate Article 5. So clearly, he didn't get the memo. Macron goes back and forth.

He's, you know, the French, just saying, who knows. But the British clearly did not get the memo. Here, we continue to see bellicose language and resistance from DOD and Blinken. They basically ignored it. They've actually proposed to reintroduce nuclear weapons to Ukraine. That's how insane this is. Now, the popular narrative, Judge, is, oh, we're going to give Ukraine back the weapons that they gave up in the 90s

as part of the agreement. Ooh. And it's like, no, you're not going to give them back. We never had them. The Russians took the weapons. Ukraine never had their own weapons. This is insanity. Ukraine, during the Cold War, was part of the Soviet Union.

When the Soviet Union broke up, Russia pulled home all of its nuclear weapons. Some of those were on Ukrainian property. So this whole idea, and I like this word i use it often it's wackadoodle i mean they don't even they don't even acknowledge facts as they are they want to literally commit the united states to either manufacture or provide out of our current stock of weapons uh a number of warheads and delivery systems systems to Ukraine. This is Dr. Strangelove's stuff, Judge. It's insane. What would the British or the French accomplish by troops there? First of all, they have so few, and secondly, the Russians would annihilate them, wouldn't they,

Tony? Dying valiantly is the only purpose I can think of, because first off, to your point, the British are decimated by their own political and budgetary choices. The British military, I think the whole British military is smaller than our Marine Corps. I mean, the whole thing. And I think they've pretty much given up any of their effective weapons systems to Ukraine already. So I don't know what they're going to fight with. And then the French too. I mean, I roll my eyes. The French have already deployed foreign legion folks. They're already kind of in the battle and they've had people die there. So I don't want to go down that path too much. But suffice it to say they've had members of citizens of both Britain and French, France

die in Ukraine. As a matter of fact fact i think there was a british uh national captured in russia and kursk that the russians now have just saying so i i the idea would be oh we'll get america to come join us like yeah it's not going to happen you put troops i can't speak for donald trump but i can speak for what I think would be the response of the generals I know. It's like, you put your troops in harm's way, we're not coming to get them out. It's your fault. And it would definitely be an escalation because they want to activate Article 5 so bad they can taste it. That's what's going on here.

Well, why do they want to activate Article 5 to force Donald Trump to bring troops in? I mean, he would still under Article 5 have the option not to bring them in. If the French Foreign Legion is inept, if the British don't have the soldiers, if the Germans don't want to do it, if Trump refuses, what Everything they do is a narrative. Remember, from the beginning of the war, even before, in 2014, the whole narrative that Ukraine's the good guy and the Russians are bad. I'll be clear, and I know people aren't going to like this. It's a civil war. These two nations have a history going back a long way. And this war is about resources. It's about controlling the rare earth, the gas and oil,

all the stuff in the Donbass and the Black Sea. That's what this is all about. Don't fool yourself. It's not about nationalism. It's always about resources. Go watch Three Days of the Condor just to refresh your memory on this stuff.

And to me, it's been a narrative war. Both sides it more the ukrainians and from day one from the time of the special military operation which is the proper term for it putin decided they were going to take back certain territories they felt were justifiably russian they started with krimia they moved on it is what it is not here to judge just telling you what the facts are once that started yeah i'm sorry judge go ahead are your sources telling you that someone either someone in the west wing or in paris or in london is talking about reintroducing nuclear weapons into the theater of war in uk? So this has been proposed here.

It's been leaked, I think, to The Economist as a concept, saying that this would be something the United States would consider. Now, I think this is Tony Blinken talking out of his, part of his body he's not supposed to. And I think it's all simply bluster at this point, this desperation. It's a narrative. As I was trying to explain, ever since the war started, it's all been about narrative. Remember, Judge, Putin was sick.

He's going to die. We're going to get the wonder weapon in if we just get the tanks in, if we just get the F-16s. This is another narrative. The new narrative is we're going to reintroduce nuclear weapons to Ukraine. We're going to give them back the nuclear weapons. It means absolutely nothing. It's not going to happen. But again, it's designed to create a certain perception that somehow the West is more effective or has more options than they do. Russia's winning. They're winning decisively right now. And this is but one other thing to

throw up some dust to try to obfuscate what the reality is right now going on. And it is something that is being done to kind of prompt the idea that somehow Donald Trump will be trapped into a set of options which commit him and the United States to continuing to support Ukraine no matter what. Are you of the view that the Biden administration wants to do just that? Wants to extend the war in Ukraine or cause some sort of a conflagration so that this mess lands in Donald Trump's lap? And if you are of that view, do the elites in Europe want to do the same thing? So it's the neocons as a political class, and it's global. And the people who are expressing it, and it's not Joe Biden. I mean, Joe Biden tried to walk up into the Amazon to find a place to hunt, for God's sake, you know, back about a week ago. This is a wink and blink and a nod. This is Lloyd Austin, Tony Blinken, and Jake Sullivan. And this is what they're trying to do because they're committed to this larger global effort

to maintain this, this, uh, veneer of, uh, Ukraine is going to win. They can win if we just continue to pour money into it. And even Zelensky has, I think, backed off that because he's even saying now there's a way Ukraine can prevail militarily. So I think it's an overall globalist effort, world economic forum, whatever flavor of globalist you want to hear. Alex Soros, they're all kind of pushing for this continuation of investment in Ukraine, no matter what the consequences are. And by the way, the belief still is somehow if they just continue to do this, they're going to wear down Russia and collapse Russia. That's what I think they can do. How startled were they by the Ereshnik? Did U.S. and British intel know of it, know of its power, know it its uh know it was coming or was everybody surprised we knew it was coming because there was some tragic um test of it about 10 years ago this has been coming for a while this

is one of the reasons judge that that uh uh mike pompeo rightly as secretary of state pulled us out of the inf treaty remember the the Intermediate Range Nuclear Force Missile Treaty that was signed in 88 or 89. I think it was 88. 87, 88. If we and Russia had been in that treaty, there'd be no Ereshnik. No, the Russians already, they were developing it. That's why we pulled out. It's like, we're not playing.

So that was the issue. The Russians decided to develop this Intermediate Range Missile. This has been in the works for 20 years. So it is what it is. I'm not here to, I'm just saying. This has been in the works for 20 years. So it is what it is. I'm not here to, I'm just saying, that's why that was the justification. When it was used and its power and ferocity and speed became known,

was the Pentagon, was the West Wing, was the State Department, was Langley, Intel, was MI6 caught off guard? The Intel folks weren't. I think the American public was. This weapon, the Hazel Rubich, is a modified RS-26. It's a cut-down intercontinental missile. But what makes it different, it's not a hypersonic missile.

It has hypersonic MIRVs, multiple independent vehicles. That But what makes it different? It's not a hypersonic missile. It has hypersonic MIRVs, multiple independent vehicles. That's what makes it unique. Because when you fire this thing off, it's like a conventional rocket. It goes up. It's apogee. And then that's where it splits off.

And then you have the warheads, which are hypersonic. That's what makes it different. And those things shoot down faster than most defenses can, can intercept them. Uh, and so right now the deployed countermeasures obviously didn't stop it. That's what a lot of people were surprised by is that we have the Patriots and all these other things front deployed in Ukraine. It didn't do a thing to slow down these 36 warheads and NERD

warheads. I might add, They didn't even have explosive charges, but that sprinkling down of all that, that was to send a strong message. Those things were aimed with precision and it should have scared Western leadership. I'm not sure if it did. I don't mean to sound naive, but in the lexicon of ammunition and missiles, how fast is 7,600 miles an hour? Is there anything faster? Well, yes, but I can't get into it. There are things that we have developed that could potentially counter it.

I've got to be very careful the um there are things that were contemplated during star wars if you go back and look at the the reagan era star wars uh systems there were things within that constellation of countermeasures that could be used that's as much as i can say about it without getting in trouble. With that said, nothing within our current deployed countermeasures can stop that. And some of those things that go up to 10,000 miles an hour. So it's a very difficult task. How far can it go? Can it cross the Atlantic? Oh, yeah. Yeah. So the intermediate things can hit Paris or London in about 15 minutes or less. Very little time to act.

The intercontinental version of this could probably hit the United States in about 25 minutes. Okay. The United States continues to deploy, because we know it takes American technicians and people with top secret security clearances to do so, in conjunction with the Ukrainians, attack them onto Russian land space. They have apparently done so even after the Arestnik was fired. Why? Don't they get the message? Do they not take President Putin seriously, Tony? They want World War III. This is how bad the Democrats and the neocons don't want to give up power. They would rather see us have a nuclear exchange rather than give up the power influence they have. That's how evil these people are.

I've said this before. The neocons are Trotskyites with a death wish and the Democrats the neolibs have signed a board, the Hillary Clintons the Joe Bidens they're all in this for the purposes of maintaining power, they don't care what it costs and they would whether leave a burnt cinder for Donald Trump

to recover from rather than allowing for the peaceful transition of power to the new president. I mean, if there's anybody that's ever been anti-Democrat, it's the Democrats and the neocons at this point. Is Mike Waltz, Congressman Waltz, the about to be national security advisor, a neocon, a bosom buddy. No. Of Jake Sullivan. He's not. No, I know, Mike. He's not. He's he. So our friends over at the Duran call, I think there's they've been calling us who are not neocons, but not doves. I don't know what name, but he's he's I would consider him like me, a Reagan guy.

And I know, you know, I don't always agree on military use of force either, but I still align myself way more with Walter Jones than what's-her-name Cheney, than Dick Cheney. So I'm just saying that Mike is not a neocon. He's not going to seek to resolve diplomatic issues with the use of military force as the primary predicate, but he's not going to sit back and be someone who does not react to threats with an adequate- Here he is talking about his new friend, Jake Sullivan, on one of the talk shows over the weekend, cut number five. President Trump has been very clear about the need to end this conflict. And so what we need to be discussing is who's at that table, whether it's an agreement, an armistice, how to get both sides to the table, and then what's the framework of a deal. And that's what we'll be working with this administration

until January and then beyond. And I also want to be clear on one thing, Jillian. Jake and I, Jake Sullivan and I have had discussions, we've met. For our adversaries out there that think this is a time of opportunity, that they can play one administration off the other, they're wrong. And we are hand in glove. We are one team with the United States in this transition. He would never have said that during the campaign. Well, I think he's got to say that. And he did say also that he did not, they did not, the Trump team authorized the escalation. He did specifically say that, no, we were not consulted before they did that. What he's got to say, and I think it's correct, don't be messing with the United States. Don't

be thinking that somehow- I get that. I get that. I get that. Don't assume that this is a time of an interregnum or weakness. But for him to say we're hand in glove and we're on the same team, I mean, Sullivan is the one who brought us Ukraine. That's correct. But saying the right thing about Donald Trump bringing everybody to the table. And I believe the only thing that's held back Putin, to be honest with you, I don't know this. I've not talked to Mike. I've not talked to Donald Trump or his team. But I believe the only thing that's held back Putin from an even more vigorous response, as in using kinetic weapons to make a point, is the fact that I think there's

back channel communications between Trump and Putin saying, just wait, let us get to 20 January and we'll start working to resolve this. Does the Trump administration intend to use diplomacy or threats to end the war in Ukraine? I've seen this from Seb Gorka, and I don't believe Seb Gorka is necessarily speaking for Donald Trump. Donald Trump, President Trump has a certain way of doing business. My interactions with him has always been, let's figure out how to cut a deal. A deal generally means you have to listen to the other side. You have to internalize what they want and you have to start figuring out how to negotiate. So I don't think, I've never seen threats be the first thing most business people use

to get something. Usually it's a dialogue first, and then there may be threats down the road. But at this point, I don't see the threats. And Putin would be impervious to threats. Judge everything that the West has threatened Putin with, he's overcome. There's vulnerabilities that Trump, I think, could remind him of, which we have not taken advantage of. And by the way, one of the things which will hurt Putin is Trump's drill, baby, drill. Trump intends to drop the bottom out of the gas and oil market by opening up drilling futures

and trying to drop the price, and that's going to hurt Putin. But I don't think that's a threat. That's just something he's going to do. Well, here's an incoming person to the Trump administration. You just mentioned them by name, who apparently doesn't get that message. Here's Sebastian Gorka at his bellicose worst. Cut number 10. I'll give one tip away that the president has mentioned. He will say to that murderous former KGB colonel, that thug who runs the Russian Federation, you will negotiate now for the aid that we have

given to Ukraine thus far will look like peanuts. That's how he will force those gentlemen to come to an arrangement that stops the bloodshed. Does he speak for Donald Trump? He's about to enter the White House as his senior national security advisor. I can't imagine, based on my conversations with some of the Trump folks, that that was a endorsed comment. Two reasons. First, there's already communication ongoing. I think both men, Trump and Putin, have signaled they want to sit down and talk. So to me, that comment is redundant without purpose, the comment of Seb Gorka. Secondly, I think that the path forward has already been fairly well defined about what's going to happen uh neither side of the of the the inbound trump team from what i've seen from the folks i've spoken to want to seek essentially a dialogue that will allow for all parties even even nato to come to the table judge

i don't think you know this this whole thing about trump wanting the table, judge. I don't think, you know, this, this whole thing about Trump wanting to dissolve NATO. I don't see that. I think they want to have a dialogue. Does Sebastian Gorka speak for the president? Not that I know of. Not that I know of. Those are not, uh, those are not comments that I know were endorsed by Trump. Trump would have to speak for himself, but not anybody I've spoken to has said that, that, that he was told to say that. All right. Switching to another part of the world, is the Taliban still an issue? Well, we're still paying them money, if that's your question.

I think that's going to end within the first couple of months of, you know, one of the things that's going to be done, two things, depending on, first off, leadership's going to be removed. New leadership comes in. State Department, same thing. So there's going to have to be a reckoning of what exactly we're paying for regarding Afghanistan. Well, the deal with the Taliban was negotiated

by Mike Pompeo and the Taliban under Trump. It was not negotiated with the government of Afghanistan. But my question to you is, is the Taliban, are these jihadists still an issue for Donald Trump? Or is it just hyperbole when somebody rants and raves about them. At this point, many of us feel that we should not have given up Bagram, that at this point, there's nothing there for us. We need to essentially make sure that the Taliban go do their thing. We don't pay them any more money. It's a Pakistani issue, Judge. It's not our issue. It's the Pakistanis to deal with. Okay, here's Sebastian Gorka on that. Cut number 12.

The resurgence of global jihadism. People think that it went away, but it didn't. With the surrender of Afghanistan, the disgraceful surrender of Afghanistan by Joe Biden, by Lloyd Austin, his Secretary of Defense. We have a new hub of jihadism. We left 80, well, just $83 billion worth of weapons for the Taliban. Al Qaeda is resurgent. ISIS is still out there. Whether it's the Houthis or whether it's the numerous proxies of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, the threat is as great as it's ever been. Now, let me break this out.

I don't think Seb got the memo, just saying. The Taliban have always been a regional threat. They are an extension of the Pashtun. The Pashtun are the ruling tribe of the region. They have traditionally never been expeditionary. That is to say, they don't leave Afghanistan to go other places. The issue right now is Al-Qaeda and ISIS-K. ISIS-K are threats which have been simmering, but not to the point of where they were under Barack Obama. There is not a quote unquote resurgence because for better or for worse, special operations command has been fairly

effective in staying ahead of these groups. I don't want to get into details, but they've been given enough freedom to go do what they need to, to make sure that these things don't metastasize to the level that ISIS did under Barack Obama or the Al-Qaeda did during the early 2000s. So I don't agree. Is radical Islam a threat? Radical Islam is a threat to Islam primarily, and that's something that Islam has to deal with. Last question. Can Donald Trump end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours, as he stated many times during the campaign? I'm sorry to laugh, but... Let me go out on a limb here.

I think within 24 hours of his inauguration, we're going to see a form of ceasefire. Because the Russians will triumph? I think that the Russians will be respectful enough to actually open the door for full-blown negotiations. And by the way, they're winning, and I think they'll look to consolidate what they've gained. They may very well have achieved their goals by January. I think they've look to consolidate what they've gained. They may very well have achieved their goals by January.

I think they've achieved it. I think they've achieved their goals. Got it. Tony Schaefer, a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you. Congratulations again on your election in the public office. A happy Thanksgiving to you and your family. Thank you.

I look forward to serving the people of Chihuahua County, North Carolina. Thank you, Judge. And you too. I'm sure they look forward to having you do soua County, North Carolina. Thank you, Judge. And you too. I look forward to having you do so. Thank you, Tony. Thank you. Okay. Coming up for the remainder of the day at noon, Aaron Mate at two o'clock.

Colonel Larry Wilkerson at three o'clock. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski at five o'clock. Chief Master Sergeant Dennis Fritz. We are up to 489,000 subscriptions for Judging Freedom. Our goal now is just get us over that finish line of a half a million by Christmas. Like and subscribe. You might even get us there by very early December. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.