Judging Freedom - Playing at War in Ukraine - Col. Douglas Macgregor

Episode Date: October 25, 2022

Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, October 25, 2022, two months before Christmas. It's about 2 o'clock in the afternoon here on the East Coast of the United States. Our guest today, Colonel Douglas McGregor, of course, needs no introduction to this audience. Colonel, it's always a pleasure. Welcome back to Judging Freedom. I want to start out, as I always start out with you, and your answers are brilliant and consistent. Can Russia lose this war in Ukraine? The answer is no, absolutely not, Judge. Now, if I were to put that question to General David Petraeus, how do you think he might answer that in light of his public comments

in the last week? Well, I suppose he'd have to call all the people that helped to promote him, who are currently sitting in positions of authority in Washington, before he gave you an answer to ensure that whatever he said was what they wanted him to say. One of the things I think you and your audience can appreciate is this. In 1942, after the fall of Tobruk, June-July timeframe of 1942, the British had been through two years, two long years of uninterrupted defeats at the hands of the Germans. And remember, in almost every encounter, the British and their allies outnumbered the Germans. And finally, after Tobruk fell, which was a very major blow in North Africa, someone asked Churchill, well, are we losing this war? We haven't won any battles.

He said, I know battles are important, but battles don't necessarily decide wars. He said, in modern warfare, it's the trends in the wars that decide them. And the trends ultimately favor us, not the Germans. Be patient. Well, I think Churchill was right. Russians have not sustained any serious defeats. And we know that they were off to a slow start for all the reasons that we've covered. Where they are right now is, frankly, where they want to be. They are defending the territory that they've annexed. And they are training, preparing, and organizing for the major offensives to come in November and December. And here's something else that your audience may find of interest. The 300,000 man

mobilization is over in the sense that those 300,000 reservists are now inside the Russian armed forces and they're integrated and they're being prepped, trained, whatever you want to call it. But the mobilization has not been suspended. And there's a lot of evidence that decisions behind the scenes have been made to continue mobilizing. So that instead of looking at 700,000 troops, Russian troops in November, December timeframe, we may be looking at a million in the field before January. And I think this is because Mr. Putin and his national security advisors, his military commanders are listening to us and the threats that we continue to make and the insistence that he effectively surrender to Mr. Zelensky. And that's not going to happen.

Among those threats, and the reason, of course, for my reference to General David Petraeus in an earlier question, is, of course, a public comment that General Petraeus made, in which he said the United States and some NATO countries should lead some sort of an allied force, not a NATO force, but some sort of a coalition of the willing, to quote George W. Bush, on the ground in Ukraine against the Russians. And knowing Petraeus, as I know you do, I'm sure you know that he wouldn't have said something like that without having run it up the flagpole first. So first, what do you think militarily of what General Petraeus has offered? And secondly, who, since he's a civilian now,

up the flagpole, would he have run this past? Who else wants this? Does the Secretary of State actually expect his boss, the President of the United States, whose administration is tottering on the brink, and whose physical existence is tottering on the brink, to put American troops on the ground? I'm asking you a lot all at once. I'll let you take those balls and run with them. Well, on the first question, I think we have to regard this as having been a kind of trial balloon. In other words, Petraeus was given this material and told to run with it because the people in Washington are interested to see or hear what kind of a response, if any, they get from the American people. That's the first thing. Secondly, unfortunately, I do think there is serious planning going on about the use of U.S. forces in Ukraine.

I think it's very dangerous. I think it's ill-conceived, but it's going on. Third, the mention of a coalition of the willing is a dead giveaway because nato is not united on this issue most people in europe are not interested in being dragged into a war with russia so when you ask the question what is this com coalition of the willing why are we going to get some Romanian troops, Polish troops, perhaps, maybe some Lithuanians, it's hard to tell. Anybody else prepared to show up? I don't know how many British troops they can expect to get. I don't think the British could field 10 to 15,000 troops

in any period of time that would be competent on the battlefield. The French, they're already overextended in Africa. So I don't know who else we're talking about. So this coalition of the willing, as it's termed, is another indicator. And then finally, why are we talking about this at all, Judge? Right, right. Why? Why? Because the globalists in the State Department want to put Putin out of business, and they think they can do it. First, it's because Ukraine is devastated. It's losing.

It's on the brink of extinction. The counterattacks that we saw over the last several months, it started out with 30, 40, 50,000 troops, then declined to perhaps 10,000, 12,000. They declined further to 3,000 to 5,000. And recently, we've seen battalion-sized units, 5,000, 6,000, 700, actually trying to probe and walk through Russian defenses. They're running out of manpower that can fight. And in fact, the information I have is that the Polish soldiers in Ukrainian uniform, and we don't know how many there are. I've heard lots of Polish soldiers in Ukrainian uniform, and we don't know how many there are. I've heard lots of estimates all the way up to and a little bit above 10,000. And then the so-called foreign legion that Ukraine has fielded, which may number five to 7,000 or

less. Again, we don't know that those formations are the only formations with any stomach for a serious attack in a major fight. So that's the other point. Now, finally, to go to yours. Yes, Judge, we have people in Washington who want a direct confrontation with Russia because they believe they can bully Russia. They believe they can compel the Russians to submit, that Mr. Zelensky can show up and accept their surrender. It's bizarre. There's no evidence for it. It's dangerous. It's stupid. But yes, they are there. And I think that characterizes the thinking at the top of the administration. So Zelensky, who was all over the place in the media for seven or eight months, hasn't made, two observations, hasn't made very

many public appearances in the past month. So I offer to you the thought that maybe he knows that what you're saying is truthful and his days are numbered. The other observation I want to make is the storied American 101st Airborne is in Europe for the first time since World War II. They're in Romania. What are they doing in Romania? Well, according to the reports, there are about 5,000 of them. This is a mix of light infantry and UH-60 aircraft. I don't know if they have a battalion of H-64D attack helicopters with them, but they're supposedly working with Romanian forces. Again, this looks like one wing or one leg of the coalition of the willing. Then the rest of the division is up in Poland, which is several hundred miles north. And there are all sorts of rumors on the Internet.

And people are saying, oh, well, they're going to fly in to Odessa and set up a blocking position to prevent the Russians from moving on Odessa. And they'll be reinforced. Okay, I find it hard to believe that we would be quite that stupid, because Odessa is very definitely on the menu for the Russians. It's a Russian city, a Russian-speaking city. It's never been Ukrainian. And they are going to retake it, just as they're going to retake Kharkov for the same reasons. And that's probably where they would stop normally. But if this happens, I don't think the outcome will be a positive one for the United States and its coalition of the willing. And then, of course, the question is, if we sustain heavy casualties and we are seen as losing, are we then going to turn to nuclear weapons? Because as I've said repeatedly on this

thing, I have never seen any interest on the Russian side in the use of a nuclear weapon. I've seen nothing to indicate it. The statements that have been made were always made in response to us, response to anyone who questioned whether the Russians would respond if they were attacked with a nuclear weapon. And they made it very clear that they will. And this is the problem with this limited nuclear war business. But I think now the danger is we could walk into this. And as I tried to point out in that short thousand word op-ed, we're not ready. This is sort of a, you know, get set and go in whether

you're ready or not. And we're not ready. The infrastructure isn't there. The tons of ammunition are not on hand. The size, the force sizes don't make any sense. I mean, this, you know, we keep saying, well, the Russians were stupid when they went in, they made all these mistakes. Well, the Russians at least went in there with a goal of not killing fellow Orthodox Slavs. That was a goal. Didn't want to kill them. All right. That didn't quite work out as they'd hoped. But now we're talking about going in and we have no such guidelines or constraints, but we don't have the forces. And we're now saying, well, the Russians are building forces. Well, there's a reason for that. This place is the size of Texas.

If you don't have several hundred thousand troops, you're not going to be able to dominate it. How are we going to do this? I don't think it's insane. Something else that you alluded to in your fascinating thousand-word op-ed to which you just made reference was the War Powers Resolution. In my view, a profoundly unconstitutional piece of legislation, but it's never been tested in the courts. And it means that we could all wake up some morning to find Joe Biden on television saying, by the way, last night, 50,000 American troops entered the fray in the Ukraine war, and there's nothing the Congress or anybody could do about it for 90 days.

Then he reports on it, and they can stay another 90 days. Then he needs congressional approval. But for half a year, for 180 days, he has, in my view, the constitutional power that Madison and companies expressly reserved for the Congress in his own hands. He can choose the target and wage the war, which makes him a prince. Madison was adamant about separating war-making power from war-waging power. But this terrible piece of legislation, which President Nixon vetoed because he thought it crimped his style rather than expanding his power. Another argument for another time gives Joe Biden that authority.

Is this something we have to fear that we wake up some morning and find out that while we all slept, 50,000 uniformed American troops, I'm just throwing that number out, entered the Ukraine-Russian war. Yes. I think it's a real possibility now, much more so than any kind of nuclear exchange. I still do not believe that anyone in the White House is deranged enough to even consider such a thing. But I do think that this is a possibility. How much is it? 90%, 80%, 60%? I don't know. But I do know that after I'd written that op-ed piece, I received an awful lot of information from people on the inside telling me that I was dead right and on target and then beginning to tell me the kinds of things that were under consideration. So yes, I think it's a possibility. Now, if we go back to this whole business, let's face it, certainly since FDR, I think we've lived in

a world of presidential government. And that's one of the tragedies of the United States. We were founded as a country. I agree. There's no question about that, that the presidency, no matter who occupies it, whether it's Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan, Harry Truman or Barack Obama, the presidency has expanded almost to the point of dictatorial powers that George W. Bush and his successors all claim that somehow they can kill people. I mean, these are claims that even to FDR would have sounded alien. But I have heard nothing other than from you and our colleagues who've been critical of General Petraeus from his statement. Now, you say it may have been a trial balloon.

Were they expecting tub thumping in support of it? Or were they expecting silence? Because no one wants to be the first one behind Petraeus to say it's time to put American troops in harm's way. I think they're most interested to see if there is any public reaction. The people that govern in Washington are really accustomed to a quiescent, compliant public. I mean, how often do people take to the streets to object to things that we do overseas with the American military? The last time I remember any serious opposition to anything being done overseas was during the Vietnam War. And people say, well, see, that's because we had a draft. Not really. It took years before they finally went to the streets and

objected to the Vietnam War. How long were we in Vietnam before anything happened? Three years. So the problem is that most Americans on any given day aren't interested. And so what you get as a consequence of this is what you have now. Right now, we have people at the top of this administration who are behaving like three-year-old children who have found out that there are these things called electrical sockets, and they've got forks, and they're shoving forks into the electrical socket to see what happens. Well, one of them is going to be electrocuted, to be sure. Probably will be shocked by it at the least.

That's where we are. That's what this idea of going into Ukraine is. It's dangerously stupid. You are pushing the fork into the electrical outlet. Let's get back to the status of things on the ground. One of our viewers asks, isn't it true that Russia has lost territory? And if so, why? That is, lost territory that it had previously conquered and acquired. Well, the only place that they have lost territory, as I understand it, that is significant in terms of square mileage was up near Kharkov. And that was an area where they only had 2,000 paramilitary police stiffened by some paratroopers.

And they just said, look, this is wide open, flat terrain. It's not worth it. We can come back here whenever we want to. And they pulled out. Ukrainians were then subject to punishing artillery, rocket fire, missiles, airstrikes, and lost 40% of the force that went in there. Now, over the last several weeks, we've had these little maneuvers, little attacks that for a while pushed forward were then driven back. And what has been going on just within the last 24 hours is another one of those. But the real focus has been Kherson,

which is critical to the Russians and critical to the Ukrainians. And Ukrainians have been expending every effort they can to try and gain control of it. They haven't. And they haven't driven the Russians off the bridgehead that they have west of the Dnieper River. And I keep hearing people report that. So I always go back and check. And what we have seen is Russian civilians were understandably evacuated. That's a good thing. We don't want them to be killed, just as Ukrainians ought to evacuate Ukrainian civilians to avoid their deaths. But there has been no massive withdrawal of Russian forces anywhere. And I would simply suggest that these modest gains here or

there have generally been reversed. And if they haven't been reversed, it's because there's no urgency to do so. And remember, behind these front lines right now, most Americans don't know this, there are groups of Russian forces with the best equipment available of between 50 and 80,000 men training behind these lines down in southern Ukraine, also behind the lines up in western Russia or eastern Ukraine, and then up in Byelorussia. So it looks like we see the evidence for three major axes, as a minimum, emerging emerging involving hundreds of thousands of troops on the attack. That's their focus. They're not worried about a few kilometers here or there of open flat terrain. What is, if you know, what is life like in the formerly Ukrainian

areas now under Russian control? I mean, is this like when the Nazis entered Paris and somehow the SS was working with the Paris police and somehow the SS found compliant French politicians to run the machinery of city government? So who runs government? Who runs the schools? And is there day-to-day normal life and commercial activities going on in these four regions that a year ago were subject to Kiev and now are subject to Moscow? Well, the areas that they're currently under Russian control have been given huge quantities of food, medicine, humanitarian assistance, which was badly needed,

and there are large numbers of engineering organizations down there trying to rebuild many of the towns and villages and farms and so forth that were destroyed in the war. Since most of the people consider themselves to be Russian, I have not seen evidence for any friction, nor has any really been reported. And that includes reports by foreign journalists who are not Russians. So I don't think you can compare that with the Second World War.

I mean, if we were talking about what was it like to be Polish, white Russian, or Ukrainian when the Soviet armies entered these countries as liberators, I can tell you from personal experience in large areas, people wanted the Germans to come back within 24 hours. So that's not what we're dealing with. This is a very different setting. And that's why reaching back to World War II all the time is a serious mistake. This is a very different set of circumstances. Beyond that, I can't report in any detail because I haven't been there. How do you expect the winter will go?

Next week is November, and soon heat will be a very serious problem, not just for the troops, but for people in their homes in Kiev. Well, unless Greta Thunberg can stop the onset of winter, I think it's going to be damn cold. And in that part of the world, having been in that part of the world, it's very cold in the winter. How about Berlin and Munich? How about major cities in Germany? Well, of course. But those areas are going to get colder first.

Remember, these are flat, open steppe, vast fields. So you don't have anything that holds in the heat. In other words, the cities are it. And most of the things that lie between the major cities are tiny villages and so forth. There's nothing to hold the heat in. And the fuel is going to be a big problem for the Ukrainians. Right now, the Ukrainians are already withdrawing all of their armor because they don't have fuel for it. That is tanks and armored fighting vehicles. They're

operating right now at pickup trucks. That's what I referred to in the op-ed, the so-called technicals, where you put a heavy machine gun or an automatic cannon on a pickup truck. There's a reason for that. They don't have the fuel. The electrical grid is down, which means that the railways aren't working, except in those cases where Ukrainians have diesel engines. Those diesel engines are being targeted, and I would expect the diesel engines to be destroyed very soon. So all the aspects of mobility that in a wide open space are so critical

are being eliminated for the Ukrainians. Well, Colonel, it's always a pleasure, no matter what we talk about, we'll hope you'll come back and join us again soon. Well, let's hope that someone wakes up and sees the criticality of bringing this to an end, arranging peace talks. That's what's needed. Okay. You just gave me a thought for another question before we part ways for the day. If Dave Petraeus picks up the phone and calls you,

what are you going to say to him? Yeah, that's a good question. I haven't talked to Dave since 2005 when he grew upset with me because he asked me what I thought we should do in Iraq. And I said, get out. Oh, we can never leave Iraq. It'll become a platform for terrorism forever. It'll threaten the whole world.

I said, really? I don't think so. And I said, Dave, we're going to leave anyway. Oh, no, we can never leave. So here we sit. The man who said we could never leave. The man who built the vaunted Iraqi army that fell apart in front of ISIS, men in pickup trucks. This is the man who's telling us that we can do this in Russia.

All Americans are paying attention. This is not something we should do in Ukraine. And it's not the time to take on the Russian military. Thank you, Colonel McGregor. Always a pleasure. Right. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom.