Judging Freedom - LtCOL. Tony Shaffer : Is War in Ukraine Nearing Its End?

Episode Date: August 13, 2026

LtCOL. Tony Shaffer : Is War in Ukraine Nearing Its End?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Undeclared wars are commonplace. Pragically, our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people. Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government. To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected. What if sometimes to love your country you had to alter or abolish the government? the government? What if Jefferson was right? What if that government is best, which governs least? What if it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong? What if it is better to perish

fighting for freedom than to live as a slave? What if freedom's greatest hour of danger is now? Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for judging freedom. Today is Thursday, August 13, 2006, my long-time friend, long-lost friend, Colonel Tony Schaefer joins us now. Colonel, it's a pleasure. Welcome to see here. I see it news, Max, all the time, but it's a pleasure to have you back on the show. Thank you for taking the time to join you. Thank you. Thank you for having me all. Here we are in the middle of the summer, 26. The war in Ukraine is four and a half years old. What are the American interests in Ukraine? Judge, we've talked about this probably a dozen times. The interest is minimal in that it's a civil war.

It's an issue that I think would have best been decided by trying to de-conflict and de-escalate rather than providing a range of weapons. And President Trump's even talked about providing weapons before Biden did on stuff. And I think the continued effort to do what we're doing essentially benefits the military industrial complex as the primary beneficiary and brings nothing to the American people. And I've been very clear about this. And I think it's time that even the fact that we've backed off quite a bit, which I appreciate, I think that the Pentagon is not doing anywhere near the level,

and Zelensky is constantly begging for weapons. The only interest I see at this point in time is essentially trying to be the mediator, which I think President Trump's trying to do, is try to get the two sides to come to the table and in the conflict. But there's no specific geopolitical or strategic interests regarding Ukraine and Russia. So, again, I just think we should never have been involved other than trying to mediate to end the conflict. How are the American people kept safer or freer by Russian and Ukrainian soldiers killing each other? Well, we're not. And I think this is something that has been a bit painful to watch.

the context of of a superpower, former superpower like Russia, seeking to resolve issues which were relating to a former state is something of, I think, it's notable. I think the war is about

resources. I don't think it's about Vladimir Putin going in to free the people in the Don Bosno's areas from Ukrainian opposition oppression. I think it's all about the fact that oil, gas and oil reserves were found in a number of regions in the early 2010s. And Putin didn't want a net competitor. So that may be something that we would be a bit concerned about regarding oil resources from the long term, you know, where does oil come from and where does it go. But again, there's been no benefit of us being on Ukraine.

As a matter of fact, I would argue we're finding out right now, and I probably would probably would not necessarily agree on all the points on this, but we would agree on the fact that many of the weapons that would be used and needed right now were given to Ukraine. President Trump has said this. And so it depleted U.S. resources of key high-tech weapons to the point of where it's been, it's jeopardized our ability to defend and conduct operations within the context of our objectives, our strategic objective. So, again, I don't see benefit there. What are your former colleagues, the intelligence community, doing now in Ukraine? Well, there's a difference. There's two different groups which really do work on this. And the primary group remains to be CIA and Radcliffe and those folks. And the primary role that I believe they're playing, because I'm not CIA, although I was trained by them. I don't work for them. I don't have a lot of great contacts. My impression is they're the ones who are primarily trying to provide over the horizon long range intelligence. Ukraine has no organic capabilities regarding high-tech weapons. One of the things about high-tech

weapons is it needs GPS, global positioning information from satellites. And the way you get that, especially regarding some of the detailed organic targeting before you want to hit things, that has to come from U.S. or European sources. So I think that's the primary role at this point. I think that's what Zelensky really wants. He wants more of that kind of intel because he believes the way he's conducting the war

that hitting deeply, to include hitting their Amazon warehouses, some of them bring the Russians to their knees. I think it's something that I've recommended against that would give any intelligence to the Ukrainians, unfortunately. So when the intelligence community helps the Ukrainians to attack a target in Russia, whether it's an oil refinery or Amazon, they call it wild berries over there, Walbury's warehouse. This results in Foreign Minister Lavrov referring to the United States as a co-belligerent. Is the United States, in your view, and under international law, a co-belligerent fighting with Ukraine against Russia? No more than the Russians were a co-belligerent in Vietnam when they were providing weapons and intelligence to the north vietnamese and i you know this has been something that's been going on

since before i was born since the end of war two where you have global proxy warfare and i do see ukraine as a proxy especially for the europeans in that there were a number of folks neocons i'm not one of them who believed that a war with russia was something important and necessary to break up the Russian Empire, the Russian nation as it is right now, the Republic. So I think that my understanding, obviously, is that we don't have boots on the ground, which I don't think that's something that was contemplated. I think there's been elements of CIA and other groups there in the country doing things to help, but I don't think it rises to the level of us being a co-belligerent. I know the Russians feel

that way, and I understand why they say that. They say that, but we are not there on the ground working in combat operations as, you know, uniformed officers with the Ukrainians working against the Russians. But we are definitely on the side of Ukraine. What I'm driving at is, how can we expect the Russians to take seriously our role as mediators when we are decidedly on one side and against the other? Well, I had high hopes, Judge, about the Alaska meeting between President Trump and President Putin. I know you did. You told us. And where did that end up? Well, I think the Russians have said, Lavarov has said pretty publicly that the fundamental agreement that was made there is now off the table. Now, I don't know what all those detail was.

I don't think they were ever publicly announced. And Marco Rubio's taken a much more bellicose stance regarding the Russians. And this is something that's mystified me because clearly, I think President Trump in the beginning did understand the need to become a mediator rather than a belligerent or a co-belligerent or whatever we want to call it. And I think this is something that drifted away pretty quickly. And it's something that I don't think has served us or the world community well because we've had, what, two more years of unending death. And President Trump's talked about this, about how many people are dying on the battlefield. So if I were advising him, I would have advised him to take a very different approach on the Russia issue than what he did. Are the neocons still dreaming about using Ukraine as a battering ram with which to drive Vladimir Putin from office or divide. the Russian Federation into five different countries. Absolutely.

That's what this whole recent uptick in, I'll just say it, propaganda that Ukraine is winning. Ukraine is not winning. But it was through this younger Federov, this defense chief who actually understood high technology. He was actually very effective in trying to get the Ukraine. That's why he and Serski. the commander of uh ukrainian forces before he got fired had a conflict because as much as i disagree with it uh better off their department their minister of defense said hey we need to take this to russia and use high tech we're never going to win conventionally

he was right uh his instincts were uh excellent unfortunately the eukans then took that to say oh these limited successes of deep strikes that means ukraine's winning It's like, no, Ukraine has changed his tactics to kind of annoy the Russians with the belief that that annoyance of the Russian population would put pressure on Zelenska on Putin. That's what the belief was. And that's why they attacked Russian ships in the Sea of Azov, which has resulted in bad outcomes with now Odessa, Ukraine being isolated because the Russians got upset. People continue to misjudge its. Neokans continue to misrepresent this. This is a limited military operation that the Russians launched with specific objectives. Yet every time I hear them talk or NPR talk, it's about the whole on invasion of Ukraine.

It's not. And I think it's this belief that somehow changing their perception of the world will somehow allow the Ukrainians to win. And it's just not going to happen. Here's what Henry Kissinger had to say about all of this 12 years ago. Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown, whether Ukraine joins the east or the west. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side's outpost against the other. It should function as a bridge between them. What do you think about, Tony?

Well, I, Dr. Kissinger, I think, had a lot of good ideas. I think this is one of them. I think the only path forward that sees a vibrant Ukraine because of the underlying politics is that where it's neutral, where it becomes essentially a buffer. Because one of the things people forget, Judge, and I always have to refer this because they forget. Russia, no matter how you view them, they have a fundamental belief that they have a right to a barrier area to stop European invasion. they've been invaded 13 times in 800 years. Mongol 1223, the Teutonic, the Teutonics, 1240, Ottoman 1570, Poland, 1509.

Sweden, 1708, French, or the French, 1712, the Ottoman French, British in 1853. Japan, 1905. Germany, 1914. Allied intervention, 1918. Japan, 1918. Germany, 1940, Ukraine, 2024. So there's issues that the Russians are never going to give up regarding this. So the idea that somehow you're going to change the momentum, 800 years of momentum of essentially having a cultural concern about foreign intervention into Russia and Ukraine being one of the gateways, which has been used, it's not going to change.

You can't change the Russians culture. And this is where I think we have made great mistakes. Neacons don't care and not understanding how to deal properly with the culture of both Russia and Ukraine. And look, the other thing I was here about this is that Ukraine is the most corrupt country in Europe or within the region. And even the EU now is second guessing the idea of letting the Ukrainians into the EU. So there's no benefit to taking aside with Ukraine because it simply kind of gets us bogged down into what I consider regional politics. I want to ask you about NATO. Yeah.

But before I pose the question, I'd like you to hear what President Putin said about NATO two days ago. Chris, cut number 12. NATO is gradually seeping into the area and new military political blocks are being formed right before our eyes. New weapon systems are currently being deployed and are also planned for deployment here, which pose serious threats to our country as well. Tensions are also been significantly ramped up

in the neighboring Arctic zone, which we have already mentioned, specifically regarding the ongoing use of the northern sea route. Although Russia has always, and I truly mean always, consistently advocated for, and now confirms its full and complete readiness for, broad international cooperation, and utilizing the many strategic advantages of the Northern Sea Roe

for the mutual benefit of everybody fully. And those states that are genuinely interested in working with us are now showing a significant level of interest, primarily from our close friends, such as China, India and other nations. They are currently engaged in active discussions with us regarding these issues, and we will certainly welcome and encourage joint cooperation, both with our friends and with all countries there.

You analyze what he said. Is there any significance to the way he appeared in a military uniform? Well, that's all. Russians are very symbolic. And I think the fact that he appeared in a uniform and made the comment as policy indicates that they are taking this NATO. I don't know how to describe it because NATO is a paper tiger. I mean, if you just look at the force structure, you look at the nations who are the current members outside of us. Judge, there's nothing there.

And I'm not saying that NATO is not doing things to be antagonistic. They are. But there's no significant combat power of any magnitude that could be used to go after Russia. And one of the things I'll say, this is something we could talk about probably half an hour. NATO has tried several times to do things without especially just logistics. We are both the command and control and logistical leader of NATO without us. NATO can't function. So the presumption has to be by the NATO countries that will be there as part of any effort. And this is what kind of does concern me because at this point policy is correctly.

We're not going to be doing things with Europe because of our differing views on protection of speech and things like that, which I think is the right policy. So this, this is all, I think, problematic in that, yeah, they can do these things. they can say these things. Mark Ruta can talk about all these different goals and objectives that they have. And Kaya Kalas can get out there and talk about what she believes to be the Russian threat, which you can't have it both ways, Judge. You can't have the Russians being the second, the second weak, or there's a term they used to use about the Russians being the second weakest combat power in Ukraine. You can't have the comments that Russia is weak and can't win Ukraine at the same time they're threatening Europe. It doesn't make any sense. But that's what they're trying to do.

They're trying to postulate NATO that the Russians are preparing for this larger expanded conflict at the same time they're trying to say Russia's losing Ukraine. So there's no clear academic framework that people can sit down and have a logical conversation. And this is something I think Reagan would have approached. I think, you know, I'm wearing the Reagan shirt this morning, is that if nothing else, it would have been dialogue and discussion about issues relating to the two sides, like we did at Reykjavik during the Cold War. And this is what's missing right now is someone sitting down and saying, these are the true issues that we have to look at.

And the Europeans and NATO are behaving like adolescent children who have found out that their dad's going to cut them off from their allowance and they're trying to do something to get his attention. Well, are Putin's fears and warnings about NATO realistic or just intended for domestic political consumption in Russia? I think it's the latter more because they, like us, have a pretty good sense of intelligence. Judge, I encourage anyone who wants to just kind of do this audit for themselves, just go look at, and it's out there. You can look at the number of forces that, for example, Germany,

France and England had during the Cold War. And yeah, NATO's bigger now because you've got Norway and you've got Finland in there, but those, they've never had significant combat power enough to make a huge decisive difference. Just look at the numbers and you'll recognize that there's a few things that NATO could do. They could be troublesome at sea. No doubt there's some issues there. They've been talking about going to seize the Russian shadow fleet, which would be something that we've been doing, too. We've been going after shadow fleet vessels. So I think it's, there's no, there's no there. So I think Putin is sending a warning. He's saying, we're watching you. We're prepared to act if we see a significant uptick and credible threat. I think mostly it's to remind his, that the people of Russia,

that NATO could be a potential invader down the road. I think that's what he's trying to signal. Why do you think Trump's approval ratings are down in the low 30s? Well, Judge, again, if I were advising him, I would have advised a lot of different courses of action regarding foreign policy. I would have advised the global economic, the global economic, the global economic, blockade on Iran first. I would have tried to use non-lethal methods to try to get them to pay attention and come to the table before we went to military force. I think there's been frustration with folks regarding the length of time. This conflict with Iran is taken. I think a lot of folks feel that

he was sold a bill of goods by the Israelis. I do believe I'm one of those. And I said this publicly. I think that Benjamin Netanyahu went in and sold President Trump a bill of goods regarding the decapitation strikes. So I think, I think as much as I appreciate to support President Trump, I think he's got some bad advice that he's acted on, which I think has kind of resulted in things not being in an optimal position right now. And I think that's people see that. And as much of the economy is roaring and it's doing very well, I'm a local, County Commissioner down here in North Carolina. The economy is doing the fuel prices while.

And knowing you're not anywhere near as significant as Biden, there are issues. But the petroleum reserve, the National Petroleum Reserve is at a record low right now, which is a big one physically. You would have been against if he had asked you making it that low. I would have been, yeah, because we have other areas of interest and plans that we have to have resources for. Plus, we're still, the Venezuelan issue is still not resolved. We're still dealing with Venezuela. You know, it's better, but it's not resolved. So why can't they get deodorant and toothpaste to the 5,000 sailors and Marines of the USS Abraham Lincoln?

Why have seven of them tried to jump off the ship? Yeah, so the Navy has been stressed. I'll be very direct. I mean, the Navy has been the, and God bless the Navy, you know, My wife's a Navy lieutenant commander, and God bless the Navy. I'm very close to the Navy, as you know. So the Navy has been the most important tool of national security and essentially diplomacy by other means, as Klossopist once said,

regarding enforcement of U.S. foreign policy, that they've had to do some very severe things. And so as much as people may be upset about the war in Iran, they should not be upset with our U.S. Navy. and they're being asked to do things in ways and for lengths of time, which have not been seen since, I'd say, the first Gulf War, that we're at that level of combat tempo. And so the Lincoln is but another symptom of the fact that we have forces out

being asked to do a lot more than they've been asked to do in the past. The combat power, I think, is available in doing well, but, yeah, you're seeing people suffering at the individual level, because we're not, they're being asked to do things for longer courage than they have been in the past. Let me take you back to Putin before we finish. Would you be surprised if he attacks NATO facilities in Ukraine, including those manned by Americans? He struck French facilities in the past, and the French kind of covered it up. Macron, of all the leaders, Judge, you probably already know this, was leaning the most aggressively forward to get, French involved, the French involved.

Apparently, they wanted to make sure that, you know, they, they were trying to overcome this reputation of being always wanting to surrender, maybe. But anyway, they, they had a number of special operations forces, which were hit. Now, when it happened, they said, oh, they were all just volunteers. They were like French foreign legion and stuff. But, you know, Apple, you know, potato, potato. So I don't know. It seemed all the same to me. And I think that's been something that's been on the table for a while. Let me put it this way. If during the Cold War, we had seen Russian units showing up forward in great number, that would have resulted in some change of policy, Cuba. Cuba, when we saw elements of the Russians showing up close by, even though Cuba was technically, you know, under.

different, you know, there was great concern. And the Cold War almost happened because Russians had put units into Cuba in a way that we considered very aggressive. So I don't know if Putin sees it the same way as we saw their presence in Cuba. That is NATO's presence in Ukraine, but that is something that I'm sure he takes very seriously. Well, Tony Schaefer, pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for accommodating my schedule. I hope we'll see you again soon. We saw you last around Christmas time. I hope we see you sooner. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. All the best. Coming up next, if you're watching us live in 27 minutes at 9 o'clock this morning, Professor Glenn Deeson, at 2 this afternoon, the Golden Boy, Max Blumenthal, at 3 this afternoon,

Colonel Douglas McGregor. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.