Judging Freedom - Russia facing heavy winds_ Jack Devine

Episode Date: April 12, 2023

There we go. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, April 12, 2013, 2023. Jack and I met in 2013, 2023. It's about 10 minutes after 3 o'clock in the afternoon here on the east coast of the United States. Jack Devine joins us as he does weekly. Jack, can you look in the camera? Are you there? There you go. I was trying to find my article. Okay. That just came through the door. All right. We'll get to your article in a minute. Jack Devine joins us now. Jack, welcome. Have you had a chance to look at or form an opinion about the authenticity of the documents leaked from the Pentagon, some last Tuesday and some on Good Friday. Yeah, I mean, I don't have any special insight, Judge. My instincts are unfortunately, you know, some of them sound authentic. Today in the age of disinformation, however, you have to allow that the capacity, the capacity to order messages and so on is quite sophisticated, not only by other nation states,

by a number of individuals. I have the sinking feeling, however, that it's a legitimate leak, and we'll see. The investigation will sort that out. They probably know now what we're dealing with and the public position will probably be accurate. One of our colleagues on air, whom I think you know, and he's actually an admirer of yours, though you disagree on a lot, Lieutenant Colonel Tony Schaefer, a former Army intel, opines that this is probably someone from inside the DOD. And the Secretary of Defense and his people probably have a good idea who it is, which is why this investigation is not being done by any of the military investigative services, but by the FBI. From your experience, how weird is it for the FBI to be investigating Americans? FBI is the lead agency on an espionage case. I mean, the question is a stolen document,

not just stolen. This is a question of who's behind this. The FBI is the appropriate agency to do this, and I think historically would. DOD will probably do their own investigation. They'll probably work closely with the FBI. My only, not admonition, my only concern, it is really hard. Now, there's so many documents of this time that he better be really good. The person really good. Gary, can you play the question? And with big data, it's a lot not generally, sadly, generally not successful. Okay, Gary, let's run two clips. Let's run Admiral Kirby saying, we don't know who it is and we're worried about more, and let's run. Then after that, Tony Schaefer saying the same thing that Jack just did.

The FBI belongs there. We don't know who's responsible for this, and we don't know if they have more that they intend to post. So we're watching this and monitoring it as best we can. But the truth and the honest answer to your question is we don't know. Okay, Tony Schaefer. Remember who's investigating? The FBI will basically report whatever it's told. Think about that. That's maybe why they don't want DOD investigators coming in because

they may want to control the narrative. The FBI, as you know, Judge, is not an honest investigative organization. I know, but Lloyd Austin would have more control over DOD investigators than he would over FBI investigators. No, it's not about DOD. It's about the White House trying to control the narrative, Judge. That's what's going on. Who benefits? Who benefits? Who benefits from the FBI coming in? The White House. Who benefits from information being investigated, but no one being found guilty? The White House. This is a fascinating analysis.

Well, I'm glad you found it fascinating. Okay. It doesn't square with me at all. Look, it's a colonel, respected colonel. Sometimes the dollar solution, I mean, the dollar analysis is correct. And that is a crime was committed, an espionage leak, and the FBI is going to come in and do this. The White House is not really going to put its hand on this. Okay? You can, you know, I know deep state and all this, this is going to

be a straightforward investigation. A lot of people are going to be involved. What's messy about this one is it's really nasty because it undermines so many different aspects of our national security arena, whether it's Ukraine, Israel. And so there is, this is why on the side of a disinformation by a foreign state has credibility. Normally it's a person. Or it is a really mean, not mean spirited, truly unpatriotic person that is disaffected with their government and would be a good recruitment target for foreign service. This is doing nothing but damage to our national security, no matter how you cut it, and it can't be buried. If they don't find it, it isn't because they're hiding it. It's just that it's such a difficult task. I'm rooting for big data. I'm rooting for high quality investigation and that he,

the leaker overplayed his hand. Okay. The documents that were leaked, we're assuming for the sake of this conversation, that it is more likely than not that they are real. We'll put aside what they said about it. I would say I'm 65-35 on it. Okay. Let's put aside what they said about Israel and what they said about South Korea. I can

understand why both would not be happy about this. Let's just concentrate for the moment before we get to your piece in this morning's Wall Street Journal. Let's concentrate for the moment on Ukraine. The documents say that the government knows, that the American government knows, that in this war there's a seven-to-one kill ratio, that the Russians are killing seven Ukraine troops for every one Russian the Ukrainians kill. Now, if that's true, do the math. This can't last much longer. Russia has twice the population base, twice the size of the military. Well, believe it or not, on the famous Judge Napolitano show, I gave you the same number. That's the ratio. And that's from people that I know in Ukraine, not from documents. But that's a slaughter, seven to one, isn't it?

We never had that number throughout history, did we, in the modern era? Well, as far as I know, first of all, sometimes they didn't keep the records. And, you know, whether seven to one is precise, maybe it's eight to one, maybe it's five to one. But it's much more than two to one, right? They change their tactics. And I touched on this before. The Russians are using human being sources to try and gain ground. In other words, if the first eight die, then they send in the next eight, right? So they're prepared. And this is why I think Putin is intrinsically evil. Most generals, American generals would never, I mean, most, that isn't the right word.

It would be the real oddball that would say, yeah, we'll use human beings to make the ground. So I think Putin, that it's not that he's just killing Americans. I mean, he's killing Russians. Now, today, you know, it's part of the country. Wait, Jack, I have to stop you. You said Putin killing Americans. As far as I know, no Americans have died. I didn to stop you. You said Putin killing Americans. As far as I know, no Americans have died. I didn't mean that.

I didn't mean that. You mean Ukraine. He's killing his own troops. Correct. Correct. But his troops are dying seven to one. For every one Russian that dies, seven Ukrainians die. Sooner or later, there'll be no Ukrainians left, right?

Well, what about Russians at seven to one? Let's put the number. Let's say the gross number is somewhere between 100 and 150. Maybe it's 80, but that's a lot of people that have died by Russians. But each one of them has a mother and father. A lot of them have brothers and sisters. They have cousins and neighbors. This, you know, 70,000 people going back, that's a lot of people. And they're losing at the rate of, you know, 800 a day. I mean-

And the Ukrainians are losing seven times that number. No, no, you've got the equation wrong. Seven times, Russians are losing seven. Look, Jack, we've misread this. We read this document the opposite way. Everybody that's been on this show Let me tell you what the truth is. Let me tell you what the truth is. Everybody that's been on this show

reads the document. Seven Ukrainians dead for one Russian. You're reading it the other way? I'm not reading it. This is what I'm being told by people that are really in the know in Ukraine. Look at the battlefield. How do you think the battle's being fought? They're not losing seven to one.

Whoever told you that is not correct. It's a document. Well, the document, there you go. There's one document that's got a mistake in it. It is not 71. It's the document that's got a mistake in it. It is not 71. It's the other way around. I know nobody.

I know no one in the government, anywhere else that has that number. Okay. You have to bet it with somebody besides me. Let me switch gears slightly. The document also claims that by the end of May, the Ukrainian air defenses will have been degraded to zero. Do you accept that? Well, I think, no, I think that's closer to, I mean, again, I don't know this firsthand. That statement sounds like that's a possible, possibly correct, right? But, you know, there's stuff on the way.

And the question is, you know, can you get it there in time? I mean, the Ukrainians have been saying it's a big problem. That one is one of the green. Will it be zero? You know, the automobiles that are driving around in Cuba were supposed to fall apart 50 years ago. Somehow you keep it going. And that's the same thing here. I don't think it will exactly get to zero, right?

But the trend line, I think, is accurate. I don't think I accept that as a working premise. The other one is not wrong. Tell me if you would have answered the questions you'll see in a minute the same way the witness answered them. The questioner is Senator Roger Wicker of the Senate. Can't wait for this. I can't wait for this one. All right. Well, they witness this Secretary of Defense, former four-star general, former Raytheon board member, former colleague. How can I dare disagree? Go ahead. Lloyd Austin.

Here we go, Gary. With regard to your optimism about Ukraine having the upper hand, that is what you told me yesterday. It is. Now, Ukrainians have inflicted significant casualties on the Russians, and they have depleted their inventory of armored vehicles in a way that no one would have ever imagined. And so now we see Russia reaching for T-54s and T-55 tanks because of the level of damage that Ukrainians have inflicted on them. And we have, in the meantime, been... reaching reaching for those tanks demonstrates what to use.

Sir, it demonstrates that their capability is waning and we've continued to witness them be challenged with artillery munitions and other things and they're reaching out to Iran or reaching out to North Korea. I think we you know, we'll see an increase in the fighting in the spring as conditions for maneuver improve. Do you believe there's a real chance for significant Ukrainian advancements between now and the beginning of winter? I believe there's a chance and we're doing everything that we can do to ensure that they have their best opportunity to be successful, Senator. Is that political pap or is that accurate insight? Here's where the audience is going to go wild. I think he's spot on. I think he's spot on. Now,

this is not new. March of last year, I wrote that this was the way it was going to unfold. There's no surprises. I have been consistent. If the audience, the folks that have been with you and me in this wonderful interaction we have, have been trying, I'm totally consistent. This is what I'm saying. And I said it yesterday and it appears to the press today. Okay. I'm consistent. Now the last part about how successful the spring is going to be, I think the ball's out. But here's my view. If the Ukrainians hold them, it's a victory. Putin, if he holds the Ukrainians, not a victory, it's a defeat. And that is a really important point. And he's saying what I'm saying right now, they are losing human beings at a much higher rate.

That's what he said. You just acknowledged a few minutes ago that their air defenses have been degraded close to zero. Maybe June 1st. No, no, no. They said in the spring. Okay. So they're rushing stuff out. We'll see how they're doing.

I don't think it's a wild misstatement to say that. There's other articles saying the Russians are running out of ammunition. But somehow, this is what I'm trying to say, they're real estimates, but somehow weapons get there. And they will not be without an air defense. All right, let's go back to the documents. It's a good assessment, but it is going to change. It is not going to be anywhere near that bad. let's go back to the document. Good assessment, but it is going to change. It is not going to be anywhere near that bad. Let's go back to the documents. Where are you surprised to see references in there? And I'm just focusing on Ukraine again, not Israel or

South Korea. Were you surprised to see references in there to American special forces on the ground in Ukraine and British special forces on the ground in Ukraine and British special forces on the ground in Ukraine. Did that surprise you? I don't believe it. I told you that on the show. Are they X? Are they X? Are they current active duty soldiers?

I still don't believe that. I don't care where it's written. All right. Well, Admiral Kirby, spokesperson for the National Security Council, this morning on Fox News admitted the presence of American special forces. But he says, I find this hard to believe you can weigh in on it. They're all at the embassy. Now, you and I know the mentality, the physicality of special forces. They're not hanging out at an embassy if they're there. Well, let me put it this way.

I was a little worried that I was wrong when you started the sentence. But then when you put the end and they're all at the embassy, it is what I'm saying. They are not in combat position. There is no active duty. That's my view. I could be wrong. I could be wrong. I think that's nonsense.

And indeed, there may in fact be top. I mean, you have a Marine Guard, it's a really light element in an embassy. And if you're in a place like the Ukraine, yeah, of course you would bring in some special forces because you may, who knows, the Russians may be coming over the wall someday. I don't believe that. I don't believe that for a minute, but you have to prepare for it. Okay. You used the word nonsense. Here's a clip from President Zelensky. He's speaking in his native language. So there's a translation. The translation is odd. It sounds like it's a computer translating it. So we're going to run it twice so that you can hear it. You tell me what he says. You're torturing me today. Okay. Go ahead. Tell me if in Jack

Devine's opinion, what he says is rational. Run it twice, please, Gary, as usual. The world should know respect and order will return to international relations only when the Ukrainian flag returns to Crimea, when there is freedom there, just like everywhere else in Ukraine. Yeah, so the only thing I expect... Hang on, Jack. I want to run it one more time. Go ahead, Gary.

The world should know respect and order will return to international relations only when the Ukrainian flag returns to Crimea, when there is freedom there, just like everywhere else in Ukraine. You know the Ukrainian flag is not going to return to Crimea as a result of this conflict? Let me start this way. President Zelensky's at war. You don't go around saying I'm yielding anything to the Russians. So he's saying what he has to say. That's his aspiration. I would say it's a good aspiration to have. The reality of it, it's going to take a lot of things to happen to make that take place. But I am saying over and over again, I'm saying it again in the Wall Street Journal today, you know, Putin's losing this one. All right. You also said in the Wall Street Journal in a very, very interesting piece that I commend

your admirers, few as they are, and your detractors as many as they are. Listen, I'm getting a lot of mail from your folks. They're coming around. They're coming around. But the argument, the article, as I understand it, makes the case that as a result of this war, Putin should go, and thereafter, we should be friendly with Russia and trade with them. We should not treat them as a pariah. Is that a fair summary of your article? If you want to take half of the article, it doesn't really- No, it's not a trick question, Jack. I'm just leading into letting you talk about the article. Let me help the audience. The article is about the opportunity that the war with Russia that

started by Putin is an opportunity to change the balance of power between the Western Europe and the United States and our allies and China and Russia and its allies. And the opportunity is this. I say in there that Putin is failing in the war and he will not be able to hold on to power. I've said it on your show a dozen times. And I said what people tend to do is they focus on getting the job done on the ground in Ukraine. But there is a bigger stake here, a bigger opportunity. And that is, if Putin leaves, I am predicting that you will have a government, I'm not saying it's a fluble democracy, but it's going to be more in line with us and not belligerent. The big and this is the we need to underscore this our big enemy everyone's

concerned about is china and if you want to balance the power you take russia and move it to the other side of this scale and china becomes a much more manageable national security okay i understand i have to finish the one sentence it's's not just about Ukraine. And that's what I was saying. The Ukraine means there's a pathway to set a new balance that brings peace. And this is the only way you're going to get it. If you can't pull Russia away from China, we are in for a very rocky next 20 years. What is the basis for your belief that whoever or whatever comes after President Putin will be friendly to the West rather than even more aggressive than President Putin is, like his predecessor, President Medvedev, who wants to invade Poland? So here's my thinking. And there was one line that was scratched

because I wanted to address that issue because everyone said, well, it's surely going to be someone tougher than Putin. And my point, tell me again, get all of your advisors judged, the people that come on and say, well, what is that new person that comes in that's going to replace Putin that's tougher?

What are they going to do? They're going to run a more effective war. Where are they going to get the army? It's a losing game. Whoever comes behind him cannot change the game, and they will not last. It's just not a winnable game. Jack Devine, always a pleasure.

I advise everybody to read that piece in today's Wall Street Journal. You can get it online if you don't have the newspaper itself. My dear friend, it's always a pleasure. Thank you for joining us. Tell the audience to save it, just like I wanted them to save March. I'm consistent, if nothing else, Judge, and thank you. This gives me an opportunity to be consistent because you call me back more than once. Well, we're happy to call you back and happy to challenge you and happy for your consistency.

You do that. You do that very well. Thank you. More as we get it from Jack DuPont and from others. Colonel McGregor, 3 o'clock Thursday afternoon, 3 o'clock Eastern. Judge Napolitano, if you like this, even if you don't like Jack, if you like it, like and subscribe. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.