Judging Freedom - Tony Shaffer: How US and NATO Failed Ukraine.

Episode Date: December 16, 2023

In our conversation with Lieutenant Col. Tony Shaffer, we delve deep into the intricacies of how the United States and NATO navigated the challenges surrounding Ukraine, with a focus on the perceived failures in their strategies. Col. Shaffer, a seasoned military intelligence officer, provides a unique perspective, drawing from his extensive experience in global security. Together, we analyze the geopolitical landscape, examining the decisions and actions that may have contributed to shortcomings in the response to the Ukraine crisis. This discussion promises to shed light on crucial aspects of international relations, offering valuable insights into the complexities of contemporary geopolitical challenges. Join us as we engage in a compelling dialogue with Col. Tony Shaffer on "How US and NATO Failed Ukraine."#russia #ukraine #USMilitaryHistory #Israel #Gaza #ceasefire #hostages #Ukraine #zelenskyy #Biden #china #IsraelPalestine #MiddleEastConflict #PeaceInTheMiddleEast #GazaUnderAttack #Ceasefire #Jerusalem #prayforpeace #hostages #Israel #Gaza #ceasefire #hostages #Ukraine #zelenskyy #Biden #china #IsraelPalestine #MiddleEastConflict #PeaceInTheMiddleEast #GazaUnderAttack #Ceasefire #Jerusalem #prayforpeace #hostagesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This new year, why not let Audible expand your life by listening? Audible CA contains over 890,000 total titles within its current library, including audiobooks, podcasts, and exclusive Audible Originals that'll inspire and motivate you. Tap into your well-being with advice and insight from leading professionals and experts on better health, relationships, career, finance, investing, and more. Maybe you want to kick a bad habit or start a good one. If you're looking to encourage positive change in your life one day and challenge at a time, look no further than Tabitha Brown's I Did a New Thing, 30 Days to Living Free. In the audiobook, Tab shares her own stories and those of others alongside

gentle guidance and encouragement to create these incredible changes for yourself and see what good can come from them. Trust me, listening on Audible can help you reach the goals you set for yourself. Start listening today when you sign up for a free 30-day trial at audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Friday, December 15th, 2023. Lieutenant Colonel Tony Schaefer joins us now. Tony, always a pleasure. Thanks for coming back. Thank you, Judge. As we speak, President Biden is twisting arms to get another $68 billion into the hands of President Zelensky in Ukraine, and supposedly Jake Sullivan, his national security advisor, is twisting arms to get the

government of Prime Minister Netanyahu to dial back its destruction of Gaza. Question, is there any way the United States can say no to Ukraine and no to Israel? Well, I think the answer no is the predominant feeling right now in Washington. It's just, I don't think the Republicans are going to approve anything before the new year. I think it's the right answer. The Israelis don't need it. The Israelis are doing quite well on their own. And I think given the choice of constraints on aid, which the Biden White House, by the way, this is one of their problems. One day they're saying, oh, we're going to give unconstrained aid to the Israelis.

And next thing you know, they're saying, no, no, we're going to constrain it. They're going to put all sorts of restrictions on it. Next thing you know, they went back and forth like five times. And so no one considers the Biden White House credible. Jake Sullivan is seen as the guy who sits at the kids' table during Thanksgiving, and nobody takes him seriously. He's not the guy to be trying to promote Biden's strength because he's as weak as Biden. So I think that's a non-starter. Regarding the overall direction of this judge, let's look at the European Union. European Union's not digging, giving 50 billion. I think Orban vetoed that or worked against that. So, you know, we should follow the Europeans' lead on this. It's like, just take a step back. And there's two things that Speaker

Johnson said this week as we're talking. First one, after he met with Zelensky, he said, yeah, I'm not impressed. We still don't have a strategy. And this is my issue always. If you're going to give people money, you've got to kind of know what they're going to use it for. And the idea of just giving them cash and hoping for the best, it's not a strategy. So I think Johnson's correctly said that. The other thing he said, we have our own security issues which have to be dealt with, which needs to be the priority. And many of the folks I've been friends, mentored by and otherwise advised by, you know, our interests as the American Republic is to protect America and our interests, not engage in what George Washington called foreign entanglements. we need to be involved in either one of the current wars to the level we are, either Biden trying to browbeat and otherwise influence Netanyahu or tripling down on the insanity of using the Ukrainian people

as a bulwark against Putin, trying to get Putin out of office. It's just not in our interest. Okay. Chris, do we have the cut of Max Blumenthal on what Joe Biden could do with a phone call? No, we don't. Okay. Tony, Joe Biden could stop the slaughter in Gaza with a phone call, couldn't he? All he has to do is say to Bibi, stop it, or we're not going to send you bombs. We're not going to send you spare parts. I don't think so. No, I think that Netanyahu would go it alone if he has to. I think he's got sufficient Arab assurances that they're

going to say things publicly, but they're going to allow them to continue to do what's necessary. Remember, Judge, Jordan, Egypt, and the Saudis all said they were not digging the idea of moving Palestinians anywhere, because every time they have done that in the past, Palestinians end up essentially serving as a virus within their own political system. So that's, I think, that's where they're going with that. One of our, one of Judging Freedom's experts on Israel is Max Blumenthal, the journalist, an American Jewish, fiercely against the Netanyahuinken could put a stop to the slaughter in Gaza. Here's what his answer was. Well, the Biden administration could end the occupation of Palestine tomorrow. They could have a Palestinian state while we're doing this live stream.

All they have to do is say no more spare parts for your F-16s, no more F-35s, and it's over because Israel depends, its occupation depends entirely on its direct line to Washington. And Biden won't do that. And Tony Blinken won't do that because Tony Blinken comes from a long line of Israel lobbyists. Do you agree? I love Max and I love the gray zone, but I disagree with him. I don't believe for a minute at this point that the Israelis would stop. There's just no way. They've invested far too much blood and treasure in doing what they set out to do. And let me say something here that I don't think it's enough media. The way they're doing it is actually endangering the lives of the IDF in ways that

far exceed what we would be willing to do. They've taken upwards of between four to 500 casualties that is IDF killed in the process of going through. And there's been videos of this. They're engaging in belly button to belly button firefights in urban areas. They don't have to do that. They have other options, which are far more lethal and less risky that they could be doing. They could be leading

with artillery. They're not. They could be leading with rockets. They're not. They're trying their best, I believe, Judge, based on what I've seen, to do a surgical removal of Hamas and try to minimize civilian loss of life. That's why they're putting those guys. There's a video, which I believe to be credible, of a firefight between an IDF soldier and Hamas. And he takes a grenade in the face, for God's sake. And that's what they're doing. And that's what they're trying to do. So as much as anything right now, this is going to be done the old-fashioned way, room to room, street to street, and trying their best to go through and pull people out who are needing to be rescued and otherwise trying to be very precise with the use of force. So again, I like Max. I like his stuff, but I don't agree with him in this case.

Isn't Israel purposely massacring huge numbers of civilians, roughly 70% of whom are women and children? I haven't seen that. I'd like to see the videos of that. I have not seen it. Okay. That's from Professor John Mearsheimer. Isn't Israel purposely starving desperate Palestinian population by greatly limiting the amount of food, fuel, and water they can have access to? No doubt that there's constraints regarding resources going in, no doubt. And again, I'm speaking as a military guy, not as a person who examines the human rights issues. The military thing to do at this point is to figure out what I would call umbilicals, basically those things which are necessary to

sustain life within an urban environment. And the Israelis are doing their best to control those, absolutely. They're trying to move the civilian population out of the areas they're trying to engage Hamas in. And Hamas has been surrendering on a regular basis. They just overtook another hospital, where I think 70 Hamas fighters surrendered in Mosque. So at this point, I just don't see the quote-unquote genocide that others are talking about. I'm happy, I have an open mind. I'm often trying to examine all aspects of any issue. But at this point, from what I'm seeing, the Israeli, the IDF are trying their very best to use military force with precision and avoid the very thing you're talking about. I think they understand the bad effects of negative press, especially if they're seen as a force that's trying to kill people, civilians without regard to military objectives.

So they've killed 19,000 civilians. How can you possibly say that? That's a number that's generally agreed on. How could you possibly say that that is surgical? They have driven people into the South and then attacked the areas to which they've driven them. They've destroyed hospitals and fuel places. They have. And I'm sorry, it's war. And war is hell, as Patton once said. I'm not for the loss of life. Judge, you know, I wrote several chapters in my book, Operation Dark Heart, about our own airstrike against a madrasa, which ended up not getting any of the bad guys and killing women and children. I'm not for that. And I do believe that things which are

done, which generate a great number of civilian lives lost, is something that needs to be avoided at all costs. With that said, I don't believe it's within the context of the policies of the Netanyahu government to back down at this point. And again, I don't think any amount of international pressure either brought by Biden through international venues such as the UN or via Jake Sullivan coming over and saying that you need to stop what you're doing is going to have any effect at this point. So we have given them 157,000 rounds of artillery and small weapon rounds. We've given them 15,000 tons of bombs. What would happen if we stopped giving them, the Israelis, what would happen if we stopped giving them anything? Do they have enough military hardware and ammunition to fight this on their own they have a very uh advanced homegrown defense industry

uh one of my criticisms of the israelis they they will steal our technology develop it and sell it to other folks which we wouldn't necessarily approve of that's my one of my biggest criticism of the israelis i've never backed off that um with that said they have sufficient small arms manufacturing, bullet artillery. I think they'd have to reduce the scope and pace of use to effectively use it. But no, I think at this point, they could continue to do what they have to do. And the timeframe, I believe, I don't know this. I'm not in any discussions with any Israelis. I generally, as a rule judge, try to stay completely away from those engaged directly in combat in these situations, such as the Israelis

and the Ukrainians. I have no direct contact, but what I'm seeing is with the current pace of use of the resources they have available and the current pace of combat operations, I think they're going to be able to wrap up and control all of Gaza by the end of January. Isn't the intentional systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure and the targeting of civilians a war crime? You know it is. You've written that it is. I have. But then again, who judges it judge? It's never going to be in a, in a courtroom, but there is a common morality, a common standard, which says the intentional targeting of civilians and destruction of their

homes and infrastructure is a war crime period, whether it's done by Joe Biden or Benjamin Netanyahu or Pope Francis, whoever does it, it's a war crime, period, whether it's done by Joe Biden or Benjamin Netanyahu or Pope Francis, whoever does it, it's a war crime. Look, there's been calls for all sorts of people to be brought to justice relating to such issues for the past hundred years. And I know this goes back to World War II and the bombing of Dresden, the firebombing of Tokyo. Look, Judge, I'm not here to defend the policy. I'm just saying that this is something that's not been absent in every conflict I'm aware of since I've been a member of the military or serving in some form to advise people.

When, well, last weekend, the State Department authorized the sale of $107 million worth of ammunition. Those are the 157,000 rounds of artillery and small fire that I had mentioned earlier. Right. And it bypassed Congress. And in order to do so, it had to exercise the president's emergency powers. The emergency powers require that either the president or the secretary of state or the secretary of defense certify in writing under oath that the emergency is one that profoundly affects the national security of the United States. Tony Blinken made that certification. What conceivable national security interest of the United States,

not domestic politics, but national security interest of the United States, was in an emergency situation when he made that declaration last Saturday? I think he made a false declaration. There is nothing at this point within either conflict that is an existential threat to the United States, neither one, not remotely. And Blinken, and this is not only the Democrats, both parties do the use of emergency declarations for purposes of trying to achieve specific political outcomes that they're seeking. It's aspirational. And so I consider the Blinken signing of that as a violation of his oath at a minimum.

Probably if you investigate it, it would be a violation of the law. It would be. It would be. But again, nobody's going to prosecute him. Maybe a Trump Justice Department would prosecute him, but there's no history of that, except when they want to go after Trump.

Right. Number 18, Chris, here's Admiral Kirby, of whom you and I have been, even though we both know him, been very critical. But here he is attempting to answer questions about what we're talking about, the Secretary of State and the President bypassing Congress. That with respect to Gaza, whatever governance in Gaza looks like, it can't look like what it did on the 6th of October. With Hamas in charge, it's got to be representative of the aspirations of the Palestinian people. And that means it's going to require some leadership and some change in the Palestinian Authority. And one last one, I promise. When you say that the U.S. requires Israel and all other allies to obey requirements of the law of armed conflict when they're using U.S. requires Israel and all other allies to obey requirements of the law

of armed conflict when they're using U.S. weapons? How can you ensure that when the administration has bypassed congressional oversight on this, debate on this, and also internal State Department debate on this? I'm not sure I understand the premise of the question. You have a bunch of weapons on Saturday without going through Congress, correct? We have a normal process for providing aid and assistance to foreign countries, Ukraine and to Israel. And that's all done within the normal standard consultative process. Tony, he knows damn well what an emergency trigger is. And he knows damn well the preconditions necessary to exercise

emergency power. He made it sound like this was an ordinary thing to do. Well, it has become an ordinary thing to do because that's what they do. Look, I'm one of those who advised multiple, you know, I can't go into details, but I advised multiple members of the Trump administration to rethink the entire scope and focus of the, I'm trying to think of the specific name for it, that basically the Pentagon has a number of clients that they serve to support regarding giving all sorts of weapons to. And by giving those weapons, we engage in regional conflicts that we have no business being in the middle of. It's not in our interest. And yet we fuel these things. And often we fuel both sides of a conflict. I mean, we did it in Afghanistan. We did it in Iraq. We still are doing it in Iraq, where we actually

will arm essentially pretty much anybody who needs a weapon. And next thing you know, we're surprised because these things are coming back at us. And it's an insane policy that's been developed by both parties, Judge. I'm casting stones at both parties here because both sides do this. And we've talked about this, and we should probably do a show on this sometime, the authorized use of military force. Everything that was required for the AUMF regarding 9-11 was accomplished within the first five years of that authorization. And yet here we are. What is it, 20 years, Judge? 23 years?

The authorization for use of military force, of which you speak, has as a precondition that the targets facilitated, assisted, prepared, helped, encouraged 9-11. Yet some of the targets used in the later years were infants encouraged 9-11. Yet some of the targets used in the later years were infants on 9-11. Okay, that's a serious issue. I want to get to Ukraine and I want to get to your wheelhouse, which is not only the military, not only intelligence,

but the politics animating it. Will the House of Representatives, in your view, controlled by the Republicans as it is by just a handful of votes, vote to give Joe Biden the $68 billion that he wants to turn over to President Zelensky? No. No, they won't. Even if there's some deal like border security. I don't think the Biden administration is going to be willing to do

what the Republicans want relating to border security. This is a political equation based on domestic politics, not on national security. The Biden administration is committed to the course of action of allowing the unmitigated and continuous streaming of illegal immigrants into the country for purposes of long-term political investment. That is to say, the Democrats believe they can create a permanent underclass that will

continue to vote them in permanently. That's part of their scheme. That is really beyond dispute, what you just said. They won't admit it, but it's so obvious. Go ahead, please. It's obvious to me. And so the purposes of what the Republicans are trying to do, which I agree with the objectives, I've advised some of these

guys that you need to find a way to secure the border. The border is secure. It's just secured by the Mexican drug cartels who basically take a percentage of everything going across. And I believe at this point, and I'm, you know, I'm mostly libertarian in a lot of these views, but I do believe it's time we start considering what we have to do militarily at the border to stop this. Because at this point, the Mayorkas DHS is not willing or able to do what's necessary to stop this immigration, this invasion by immigration. Okay, back to Ukraine. What will Joe do? Or what will Zelensky do if he doesn't get the $68 billion from the House? So there's going to be two things they're going to do. I can already see it in the tea leaves. They're going to try to take more muscle. And Danny Davis, Danny is talking about this on his podcast, talking about how the

DOD will do this. They will start looking at what won't be missed necessarily right away regarding our own necessary wartime stock. So I think they're going to start trying to move some things over that we need. They've already done a little bit of that, but I think it's going to be even more extreme. So I think that's the first thing they're going to do, even if they don't get the money. Secondly, I think they're going to be doing things out of existing pots of money. The government is flushed with money. This is one of my criticisms always of the federal government. The federal government has all sorts of unaccountable flush funds that are available, and I think you're going to see some of those being used, they could safely keep Ukraine in the game for another six months, at least without any additional funding from the

Congress. How crazy is it for NATO to even consider beginning the process, because it's a years-long process, as you know, of Ukraine becoming a member? Two things. First, it'll never happen. It's just not in the cards. Putin has stated flat out as a matter of policy, Russian policy, that they will never permit Ukraine to do that. And so at this point, the Russians have won the war. The war is won. The question becomes, what does Vladimir Putin want to do to facilitate ending whatever you want? So if necessary, there will be no Ukraine to become a member of NATO, because I think Putin would go all the way. Just take the whole thing. I don't think he wants the whole thing.

I think he wants Odessa. He said so in his recent speech. And he wants a few other things. But I don't think he wants Odessa. He said so in his recent speech, and he wants a few other things, but I don't think he wants all of Ukraine. I think he would allow for a rump state of Ukraine to exist as a buffer between the West. People tend to forget, Judge, the Russians get a vote on how the borders are configured, and the Russians have a healthy paranoia based on previous invasions. We've talked about this. Let me go through my list to keep it here. Mongols, Ottoman Empire, Sweden, the French, Japan, 1905, believe it or not, U.S. intervention, 1918, Germany, 1941.

These are all invasions of Russia. So the Russians have a paranoia which influences their thinking and policy. So Putin has simply said he's not going to permit NATO to move further east. And I take him at his word. Chris has put together a montage for us of President Biden. So you're going to hear him say, Putin has already lost. We're going to help Ukraine for as long as it takes. We're going to help Ukraine for as long as it takes. We're going to help Ukraine for as long as we can.

Ooh, Putin might take Ukraine. Here's the president all over the place in the past six months. Putin's war of conquest is failing. Russia's military has lost half its territory it once occupied. It's worth fighting for for as long as it takes. And that's how long we're going to be with you, Mr. President, for as long as it takes. We'll do it. Thank you, ma'am. We're advancing this goal by providing them the support Ukraine needs now

on the battlefield and helping them strengthen their military over the long term. The fact of the matter is that I believe we'll have the funding necessary to support Ukraine as long as it takes. The American people can be and should be incredibly proud of the part they played in supporting Ukraine's success. We'll continue to supply Ukraine with critical weapons and equipment as long as we can. If Putin takes Ukraine, he won't stop there. It's important to see the long run here. He's going to keep going. He's made that pretty clear. If Putin attacks the NATO ally, then we'll have something that we don't seek and that we don't have today. American troops fighting Russian troops.

American troops fighting Russian troops if he moves into other parts of NATO. There's a lot to unpack here. The scare tactics at the end, American troops fighting Russian troops. To me, that's inconceivable, but I want your thoughts on it. And the migration of Joe's words, maybe he's getting accurate intel. Putin has already lost and now he's saying, But I want your thoughts on it. And the migration of Joe's words. Maybe he's getting accurate intel. Putin has already lost. And now he's saying, oh, Putin might take the whole country. So I realize he's a politician.

Yeah. But he is the commander in chief of the military. Well, not a good one. Just no. No, not at all. So let's break that down a little bit. So first off, there's no indication that Putin is expanding the Russian military to the size necessary to engage NATO. Basically, in his speech, I think he even said just no, they do not envision any additional call-ups.

That is to say they feel they have the force structure necessary to achieve their political and military goals in Ukraine now. And I think, again, I accept Putin at his word. I think he's been very clear on this. The idea of him going into Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, the Baltic states is insane. Those states hate the Russians. There's an embedded hate for Russia because of what happened during the Cold War. And I think Putin understands that. And so I don't think he would, first off, have any chance of taking those nations back or going into Poland. The Poles hate the Russians.

And, oh, by the way, we do actually have, I think, two infantry division, two armor divisions in Poland as we speak. There's no indication, Judge, militarily, that Putin has any desire to go any further than he has. I'm not saying that because I'm pro-Putin. I'm simply stating that as someone who studied this, and I try to understand as best I can what would come next. There's no indication the Russians intend that. Secondly, regarding Ukraine and what his desires are, they have pretty much achieved everything they can. Putin's won. I don't know why Biden, I think the more Biden says what he does, the more damage he does to both U.S. credibility as well as further indicating the intention is to use the Ukrainian people in a way that's unhealthy and will make the Ukrainian people hate us ultimately. You saw how disjointed President Biden was. Yes. Two days ago, President Putin, it may have been yesterday, gave his annual four-hour press conference preceded by a 20- or 30-minute speech.

No notes in the speech, no notes in the presser. But here's an excerpt from the press. It's two people questioning him, but there are hundreds and hundreds of journalists in the room. You tell me, who's the adult in the room, Joe Biden or Vladimir Putin? There will be peace when we achieve our goals. Now, let's get back to these goals. They don't change. Let me remind you of what we talked about,

about the denazification of Ukraine, about demilitarization, about its neutral status. We will agree on demilitarization, about its neutral status. We will agree on demilitarization and agree on certain parameters. During the negotiations in Istanbul, we agreed on them, but then they simply threw these agreements into the oven. There are other possibilities, either to reach an agreement or to resolve it by force. This is what we will strive for. Pretty sensible. Pretty consistent. Consistent all along, Tony.

Well, remember what we've been told, Judge. Putin apparently is on his deathbed and doesn't know it. Apparently he's got all sorts of health problems which prohibit his being able to focus. We were told that. Really? It looked pretty good to me. We were, over and over. I don't know how many times I've been asked to comment on rumors that Putin's on his deathbed. You've been hanging out with Jack Devine.

Just say that. And then the other. Yes, of course. We've had this conversation anyway. The other thing we were told, obviously, is that the sanctions are going to work. Judge, the Russian economy is growing. And oh, by the way, because of the boneheaded policies of Joe Biden, Europe, who used to be partnered with the Russians on natural gas, well, that got turned off. But oh, by the way, the Chinese, Chinese have got all the natural gas they need now to continue to grow their economy. So the sanctions didn't work either. So to that point, and again, I'm not pro-Putin. I always have to say this because I get in trouble. Putin has been very consistent, very much the strong man who he is.

He's a strong man, and it's on full display there. And the other thing that you didn't cover in that clip is his comments regarding Odessa, regarding their goals of basically reestablishing Russian dominance over those areas which are traditionally Russian, and he includes Odessa. So I'm just saying they've been very consistent. They've been very deliberate in what they're doing. And I do believe at this point they've achieved probably about 80% of their goals. I think they're going to try to figure out how they want to get the other 20% over the next year. I think you're right. Tony Schaefer, what a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for all your time. Thank you for your thoughts on this variety of issues. I hope we can

see you again next week. Yes, sir. Next week. Thank you, my friend. All the best. Thank you. Coming up, Colonel Larry Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State, the late Secretary of State Colin Powell, you know, Colonel Wilkerson, at 2 o'clock Eastern, the great Professor John Mearsheimer today at 3 o'clock Eastern, and the roundtable with Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern at 4 o'clock Eastern, and ask the judge, just me and you, at 5 o'clock Eastern. Busy afternoon. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.