Judging Freedom - Moving Pieces of Wars - w_Tony Shaffer

Episode Date: April 6, 2023

This podcast is sponsored by Talkspace. You know when you're really stressed or not feeling so great about your life or about yourself? Talking to someone who understands can really help. But who is that person? How do you find them? Where do you even start? Talkspace.

Talkspace makes it easy to get the support you need. With Talkspace, you can go online, answer a few questions about your preferences, and be matched with a therapist. And because you'll meet your therapist online, you don't have to take time off work or arrange childcare. You'll meet on your schedule, wherever you feel most at ease. If you're depressed, stressed, struggling with a relationship,

or if you want some counseling for you and your partner, or just need a little extra one-on-one support, Talkspace is here for you. Plus, Talkspace works with most major insurers, and most insured members have a $0 copay. No insurance? No problem. Now get $80 off of your first month with promo code SPACE80 when you go to Talkspace.com. Match with a licensed therapist today at Talkspace.com.

Save $80 with code SPACE80 at Talkspace.com. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, April 6th, in the Christian world, Holy Thursday. In the Jewish world, the first full day of Passover. In the Muslim world, just about in the middle of Ramadan. Here it's about 10 minutes to 12 minutes after 11 in the east coast of the United States. Our good friend, good friend of the show, Tony Schaefer, returns to our camera. Tony, always a pleasure. Thanks for joining us. Thank you, Jody. Good to be here.

A lot has happened in Ukraine and in Europe since last we spoke, but I want to start with two events that happened yesterday and today. his meeting in a few minutes with the president of Taiwan, the chair of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Mike McFaul of Texas, was in Taiwan saying we need to harden the Taiwanese defenses against China. So let's run this clip, Gary, of Congressman McFaul in Taiwan from yesterday. Being here, I think, sends a signal to the Chinese Communist Party that the United States supports Taiwan and that we're going to harden Taiwan and we want them to think twice about invading Taiwan. We're going to harden Taiwan. What do you think he's talking about, Tony? And does he know what he's talking about? And how significant is it what he says because of who he is?

So it's significant because he does control the budget for the whole of DOD by the fact that the House has to appropriate the funding. As everybody knows, that's where it starts. And so he does actually have a good platform to speak of. Now, regarding strategy and the wisdom of his words, I'm skeptical. This is something I'm concerned about. And I actually spoke about this with Doug McGregor on my own show, The Hard Truths, which you just put up there on the screen. We have no strategy, Judge, that actually links to national objectives. So when you have a member of Congress, a politician, stating as policy what we can do militarily, and the military is not really like linking to a larger strategy, it troubles me.

Because we all recognize the importance of Taiwan. Taiwan is the foundry of the planet for microchips. I think 91% of microchips which go into autos are manufactured there, something like 31% of advanced microchips going into other things. So it's hugely economically imperative to the world that Taiwan produce what it does. I'm not here to compliance the fact that we're relying on it, but we are, as are the Chinese, the PRC. The Chinese depend on these chips as well. So it's important to recognize that people in Taiwan have the right to defend themselves, but I'm not sure if we've thought through how that would be most practical to do.

Okay. I want you to take off your military hat and put on your hat as an astute observer of the politics of all this. But before you do that, I want you to listen to Speaker McCarthy. This is from Fox News. So he already had the time this clip was made, which I think was last night, he already had his meeting in California with the president of Taiwan. And he seems to be emphasizing a point that I want to make with you afterwards that, oh, this is bipartisan. There were Democrats at the Reagan library. I'm putting a little emphasis in it, but I want you to pay attention to that because I want to address it. Gary, run that clip. Very bipartisan meeting. We had Republicans and Democrats here speaking with one voice.

And you know what? We need to speed up our weapons sales to Taiwan. Have we learned anything what's happening around the world? Let them defend themselves. Deter the ability of China to enter Taiwan. We need to be able to foster greater democracy and freedom. We need to be able to work together economically from the chip manufacturing and others. I found it a very productive meeting. It's the first time a Speaker of the House has ever met with a Taiwanese

President on American soil, but I think it was very important in a bipartisan manner, almost 20 members together meeting. Bipartisan, well, what party controls Congress when it comes to this? Answer, the war party. That consists of a majority of Democrats and a majority of Republicans. But I'll let you comment. When politicians say things like Kevin McCarthy just said, bipartisan, we're going to defend Taiwan. Or Congressman McFaul said, we're going to defend Taiwan. So Congressman McFaul said, we're going to harden Taiwan. Is this policy or is this pleasing the crowd back home?

Well, it's more pleasing the crowd because I'm a Reagan Republican and I do believe, Judge, in strong deterrence, but deterrence have to be psychological as much as physical. So what you're doing here, what they're talking about is essentially selling the Taiwanese a bunch of stuff and hoping for the best. That's not a strategy. So again, if you look at the Reagan model, the Reagan model included a whole of government approach to engagement, messaging, and oh, by the way, the guy that had to do all that was a guy named Ronald Reagan. The credibility of the deterrent model actually has to come from the guy in charge. Think about that for a second. So all this other stuff, all this other noise, nobody believes Joe Biden will do anything regarding the whole of government or actually put together a plan that is a credible

deterrent. That's the problem here. All this other stuff is just spending money and hoping for the best, unless the deterrent is led by a strong leader who understands the fact. That's my biggest concern, the fact that we're trying to help Taiwan or not. The Chinese certainly understand how American government works. They do. They know who these Republicans are. They know that the Republicans only control one house of Congress, notwithstanding McCarthy's boast that it was a bipartisan delegation. And I don't disbelieve him. He probably of the 20 people there had a half dozen, maybe more pro-war, pro-DOD Democrats. But the Chinese also know that the president sets these policies, not the Republicans in the House. Exactly. That's my point. So just to recircle, just to make that point very painfully clear, unless the senior executive and chief executive

is on board and actually working this as a policy matter. Those guys in Congress, Judge, the politicians can speak on policy. They're policy makers, but the policy is not credible. Nobody believes, Judge, that any deterrent model we put together will be able to deter anything. It didn't stop Putin. It didn't remotely stop Putin. So I don't know why we think this model is going to be any't remotely stop Putin. So I don't know why we think this model is going to be any better than now. So I'm smiling because we've been friends for too long, Tony, because I'm starting to think like you. That's exactly where that was going to go. I mean, Joe Biden's so-called deterrence, it doesn't work in Ukraine. All it does is suck us in more and more. Now, since last we spoke, the White House has announced 2.8 billion, with a B, more equipment, HIMARS, on their way to Ukraine. coming from Poland or Romania or France or Germany, or this is new stuff built in the U.S.,

hasn't even been acquired by the DoD yet, and is being sent directly from the manufacturer to some place in Poland where it goes to Ukraine. Do we know? All the above. Some of it's coming out of existing stock. DoD is trying to do a balancing act, Judge, between maintaining some level of capability. The DOD has missions. It has to have that technology as part of those missions. So they're trying to retain somewhat. They're trying to get some things there immediately so they can be used on the battlefield. And then ultimately, everything has to be replaced by manufacturing. So all of the above. It's all happening at once the question becomes again uh so what is this going

to be actually used effectively by zielinski in the in the ukrainian military will it have any deter any any ability to actually stop the russians ultimately from what they're doing and will we actually lose technology because one of my worries still is we're giving all this new technology to the ukrainians it's all going to go to the russians russians are going up with everything we're giving them in some form to analyze and try to be able to figure out how to defeat in the future. So those things are all happening as we speak right now. Also, since last we spoke, Tony, it is pretty clear without any boasting by the Russians or admissions by the Ukrainians that Bakhmut has fallen. Right.

Our mutual friend, Jack Devine, says, big deal, it's just one town. But it's a major city and it's a choke point, as you military guys would say. It's a point through which the Russians need to pass. Now, Colonel McGregor, who along with you, two of the smartest people I know in analyzing military strategy, has pointed out that Bakhmut is not only a choke point, now opened up for the Russians to move

west, it's also an iron jaw that the Russians delayed conquering Bakhmut until more Ukrainian soldiers foolishly entered the city where they were slaughtered. Stated differently due to what Colonel McGregor describes as a brilliant Russian strategy, it cost Ukraine far more to lose Bakhmut than it ought to have cost. What do you say about all of that? So it's a war of attrition at this point, Judge. And I agree with Doug. I mean, I've spoken with him on my own show about this. The Russians are engaged in attempting to reduce the effectiveness of the Ukrainian military so that when at a time of their choosing, they go on the offensive, they have when at a time of their choosing they go on the offensive they have less less of a military force to deal with and uh Zelensky is foolishly throwing more let me let me go on the record here and say I think you're going to see another at

least battalion if not a brigade of Ukrainian forces thrown into the cauldron to to attempt this to right now Zelensky is so focused on being able to say that Bakhmut has not fallen. As long as there's one guy who's not dead or badly injured to the point of where he can't move, they're going to say that Bakhmut has not fallen. And I think they're going to throw some more reserves in there because it's so important to the narrative that Zelensky is trying to continue with the West. So I think it's going to be even more attrition by the Ukrainians to the, to advantage this, the Russians. So is there any question in your mind,

but that Ukrainians are losing more men than they need to lose. And the Russians are, are advancing. The two things that tell me that the Ukrainians are losing is the fact that while both sides do propaganda, the Ukrainians seem to be the most aggressive at trying to get their message out. The Russians are kind of like deliberate. They're just grinding it down. And Ukraine is much more spastic in trying to get their, so I think they're panicking. So I think they're very worried. And secondly, when you actually examine just the numbers again, Judge, you know, I'm not pro or against.

I actually mentioned, you know, if if if a yeast infection got into a war with with mold, I don't I wouldn't care. That's the same way I look at this. Like, you know, it's yeast and mold fighting each other uh right now the bottom line is ukrainians do not have the combat power to to retake bakhmut and they certainly do not have the combat power left after and that they're trying to hide their losses they have huge losses they have not reported they've way under reported and they just don't have the military of uh the numbers in their military to to sustain the current level of operational tempo. Here's Jack Devine. You and I know him personally and professionally. My audience loves to hate him, but they watch him. Here's the wildest thing he said just yesterday about who's winning and who's losing. In the last two months, you were telling me these great wizards

of war were saying the Russians have the 300,000 man army and they're going to roll right over Ukraine. Here we are, 150,000 troops went in and they may or may not have taken a town. I mean, he is having a hard time. This is not victory. Anybody that thinks he's won something, God bless you, but I don't know how I could hold my head and invade a country and move a few kilometers. So I think he's in trouble. I think he's in serious trouble. That's why there's a fight between the regular military and the Wagner Group. The he, of course, to whom he refers is President Putin. Yeah.

Well, look, Putin is a thug. I've said this over and over. I'm not a fan of Putin, but Putin, you have to deal with him. He is the leader of Russia, period. And the Russian way of war is not our way of war. Anytime, you cannot do a one-for-one analogy of what the Russians do and what we do. And again, I fault Jack and others for cultural vandalization, if you will, of the Russian way of doing things. They project onto them our standards and ethics. It just doesn't work. So Putin is not one because he's chosen not to

move forward in an aggressive way. The degradation of the, why, Judge, again, why would you try to start taking terrain if you have to lose twice as many soldiers as if you just sit there and let them come to you and you just kind of shoot them down as they come? That's it. It's like, why do that? So if you've got an enemy like Zelensky, you got him by the nose and you're kicking him in the ass to quote Patton, why would you want to like, let him go and chase him? And as you, as you chase him, you're going to lose more people. You don't want to do that. So I just, I don't, I don't agree with Jack. I think he's insensitive to the reality in which the Russians,

how the Russians. Is Jack, is Jack just mouthing the party line? I don't expect you to get in his head, but give me a guess. Mouthing the party line because he's a company guy, because he was CIA for 40 years, because when he retired, he retired in good standing and management. He wasn't an iconoclast like McGovern or Giraldi. Or is Jack saying what the CIA is telling Joe Biden. And if the latter is true, we are really in trouble if the CIA is lying to the president. So, look, I've dealt with, your audience knows, I was trained by CIA. We all go through the same, you know, we go through the farm to become case officers.

But I went back to the military to support military stuff. I've dealt with senior CIA leadership my entire career judge to include Ted Price when he was DO tenant when he was DCI, you know, Jim Woolsey and are still friends from the time I was running operations when he was director of CIA. And there's a certain level of arrogance that establishes itself within the CIA mindset, period. It's always there.

It's always, we're smarter than you. And whatever you say just doesn't matter. And I think Jack suffers from that. But more importantly, it's a collective process of where they all think that way. It's very much like if you've seen Star Trek, it's like the Borg, you know They very much think like each other, and it's like, we're going to say the same thing, whatever we think the truth should be. The truth is what they believe. But do you think that the raw data being accumulated and assimilated by officers on the ground is making its way to Langley and to the West Wing? Or do you think the politics, I've asked you this before, and maybe it changes during the course of the war

as events in the war change. Or do you think politics is influencing what senior management says to the president, that they tell him what they think he wants to hear, even if it's not a realistic portrayal of what's going on on the ground. Does the president think that the fall of Bakhmut is meaningless? The truth is not getting, I don't think Biden wants the truth. So he's going to be a co-conspirator and saying, just tell me what you want, because he doesn't want the truth. Leaders at that level, level judge have to be intuitive to understand that they're probably not going to get ground truth so they have to seek it out

because they get processed and regurgitated intel that's over and over it's processed a lot it's like uh pre-chewed beef you know they get this stuff sent to them all the time and they just take it they i know from, again, advising Mike Pompeo, advising multiple senior leaders of DOD, I always try to give them stuff from the bottom because they're not going to get it otherwise. And then they've got to figure out they're being lied to. And sometimes they know they're being lied to. Sometimes they want to be lied to. I've been in meetings with members of Congress who know they're being lied to. They wanted to be lied to. So I think the Biden administration knows they're being lied to, they wanted to be lied to. So I think the

Biden administration knows they're being lied to, but they don't care. They want the lie to be presented as truth and it allows them the cover to create policies which will not succeed one way or another. Okay. Three weeks ago, the FBI arrested a guy in the United States who was holding himself out as a Brazilian soccer player. But the FBI claims his real name is Sergei Cherkozov and he is FSB, Russian security. Two weeks after that, an American reporter named Evan Cherkovich wrote a story for the Wall Street Journal saying that the sanctions are finally hitting Russia and their economy is tanking. A week after that, he was arrested in eastern Russia, allegedly with military secrets in his hands. Is there a connection between all of this?

Are we into this diplomacy by kidnapping and arresting and trading? This is the Cold War again. The Russians are speaking to us in the language of the Cold War, and the Biden administration is either purposely not speaking the language back or doesn't care. But yes, you're going to see tit for tat. This is emblematic of how the Cold War was fought with leverage on both sides. And the Wall Street Journal guy, Judge, I mean, look, I understand from credible reports that I've seen, he was out trying to verify economic data relating to tank production. Well, you know, the Russians should let him do that. I think the Russians would benefit from letting people know that they're actually producing a ton of tanks, so to speak.

But no, that's military information they believe is protected. So that's why you got to arrest them. That's exactly what McGregor said. Russians are at war. If we were at war and a Russian journalist were looking up how many tanks we had, we'd probably interfere with that as well. I agree. And so, yeah, but you're going to have a tit for tat you're that's just the way it's going to work okay um the

assassination of uh tartarski tatarski uh in saint petersburg where he was handed a uh a bust of himself now who wouldn't accept a bust of him? Oh, my God, somebody made a statue of me. I'm going to take it. Ten minutes later, it blows up in his face and kills him. The girl that handed it to him was in the front row, which leads you to believe maybe she unwittingly handed him this bust that had a bomb. That's what she's saying. That's what she said from her direction. Right. But is this the way Ukrainian intel operates? I mean, they assassinated Daria Dugina. They were aiming for her father. Both of the people killed were to the right of Putin.

Russian nationalists encouraging him to be more militarily aggressive. Can this possibly be part of the foreign policy or intelligence MO of Ukraine intel? Look, Judge, again, their culture is not our culture. And assassination, subterfuge, manipulation, that's, look, so different. And these, within the context of their culture, this is just fine. And yeah, I think the Ukrainians will launch off attacks against specific human targets that they believe are influential. And this was, this was clearly meant to be a message. And so it's going to be, again, they're going at each other. Always remember, the Russians and the Ukrainians are literally cut from the same cloth. It's oligarchs versus oligarchs.

It's totalitarian political systems versus totalitarian political systems. Assassination is a common thing within the way they fight each other. Last subject. Yesterday, the new U.S. ambassador to Moscow presented his papers to President Putin in the presence of other Western ambassadors a war in Ukraine is because of the U.S. And then he proceeded to explain the CIA involvement in the color revolution, the coup of 2014. I mean, my hat is off to him for his candor and his honesty. But was this the time and place to say this? Does this surprise you coming from him? Well, I think Putin, again, I'm not a defender of Putin.

I'm not a fan of Putin, but he's correct. The color revolution led by Victoria Nuland and others was meant to essentially- By the way, she's got a new nickname. Her new nickname is it's time to bomb Crimea. So Victoria, it's time to bomb Crimea, Nuland. Go ahead. Sorry for- Yeah. So Victoria, to bomb Crimea, a new one. Go ahead. Sorry. So, yeah. So so there was a policy choice by the Obama administration to work to undermine a foreign government as if they haven't done it already before.

And the policy was of Obama that they wanted to move Ukraine from the influence of Russia, essentially as a satellite or buffer state to the EU. That's what that's what that revolution. So Putin is fundamentally correct on the facts. And so was it the right time to present it to him or not? Well, I don't know. I think maybe Putin's trying to get through to the West to remind the West that this was an Obama policy that moved Ukraine out of their sphere of influence and attempted to move it into the EU sphere of influence. It is what it is. I'm not judging either. I mean, I don't think it was the wisest policy move by the Biden administration. I think it was a mistake.

With that said, Putin's got a point. And I'm not a fan of Putin, but he is speaking what is fundamentally objective fact that can be proven. Got it. Tony Schaefer, a blessed Easter to you and your family. Thank you very much for joining us during this busy week. We'll see you next week. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All the best.

More as we get it later today. Matt Van Dyke from the streets of Ukraine, 12 noon Eastern. And Scott Ritter, 1 o'clock Eastern. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.