Judging Freedom - Ukraine Offensive Latest / Dam Explosion - Tony Shaffer

Episode Date: June 6, 2023

See omny.fm/listener for privacy information.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, June 6th, 2023. It's about 1115 in the morning here in the East Coast of the United States. Lieutenant Colonel Tony Schaefer joins us now. Tony, always a pleasure. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much for joining us. I want to get right to the news of the morning, which is the explosion and destruction of this dam in Ukraine. We're going to watch some tape of it. We'll talk over the tape. I have a lot of questions for you. So first, it appears we are seeing initial, secondary, and tertiary explosions. You can explain that after we watch all of this. And soon we'll see massive massive movement uh of water as a result uh of these uh

of these explosions here we go so whatever is downstream uh from that dam and not there anymore right at least not in the same state that it was in before all this happened yeah and this is within the past 24 hours you can see the source of this is President Zelensky's office okay so did the Russians do this or did the Ukrainians do it? So who benefits? Always ask who benefits. And I think we need to reference some history here. Who shelled the nuclear plant back last year? The Ukrainians did.

Who actually has the most concern relating to obstacles that were placed around downstream of this thing by the Russians who want to defeat those obstacles, Ukraine. And ultimately, who benefits from the psychological value of a destruction of a major resource? And again, I think it's Ukraine. So after speaking to my senior analyst, who looked at this in detail as best you can within the time frame we've had uh i i don't think it's the russians i think uh i think ukraine did this for purposes of trying to to uh provide additional uh propaganda value to say the russians are doing more destruction of infrastructure i just don't think that's the interest of the Russians Russians are winning uh everything I've seen over the last day to include their absorption of the offensive the so-called offensive from the Ukrainians uh the Russians are putting out some pretty high figures

someone of some somewhat something of just a tick under 3 000 lost by the Ukrainians as they've weighed into the Soviet so sorry 30 and slip the the Russian defenses as they moved into it. And so I think this is, in my judgment, done by the Ukrainians. Again, this is total, this is my assessment based on what few facts we have. I think it's a very sound, very sound assessment. I think the Ukrainians were probably the ones who did it, incidental and complementary to their summer offensive, which is just underway now. Isn't it crazy for them to have flooded their own territory like this? It's crazy, but again, they benefit by the fact that it does help overcome some obstacles that were placed along the river uh by the russians earlier this

year it helps uh it lowers uh the amount the water supply to the nuclear plant which again i think they've been trying to for any number of reasons uh make it look like the russians are trying to damage that plant again if you recall judge they actually there was shelling of the plant and and the russians were initially blamed well it was the ukrain who did it. So again, I am not pro-Russian. It's just my job is to call balls and strikes. And I just don't, I just believe based on the current combat circumstance, tactical circumstance, the people who benefit most from this regarding- Right. Tony, is this sophisticated military strategy? Is it reckless or is it something else? Desperate. So in my judgment, looking at history, and I do a lot of, when I'm not show prepping for things like this, I'm actually trying to look at historic examples.

I'll look at battles from World War II. I'll go back to World War I. I examine different strategic factors relating to how tactics are used to achieve strategic objectives. In this case, I believe the tactical efforts by the Ukrainians are focused on doing three things. First, creating a perception that they're not losing, that they're still on the battlefield. And secondly, that their presence on the battlefield is actually something that will overwhelm the Russians. And third and most importantly, that the West needs to triple down on supporting them. Those are, I think, their strategic objectives. Right now, this to me meets those three objectives by the fact that they're trying to play the victim card saying see the the mean russians going if the stay with us and that's why they're trying to distract from their combat losses which again i i don't have the full numbers but the the offensive is not going well according to what i'm

hearing so you always you want to distract uh your your uh those who want who uh who you want to impress with, you know, hey, look, they're being mean to us. And they are. I mean, the Russians are being mean. It's a war. But I'm just saying, I don't think the Russians were behind the blowing up of the dam. How difficult is it? Ukraine is going to be killing its own civilians with this flood, no? I don't think, I suspect, and this is another thing we're going to have to find out was there a warning given because whoever gave the warning about the water coming probably knew that they were going to blow up the dam just saying those things normally there is some level of kind of surreptitious moving of people if there's a belief that something like

that's going to happen again yeah here Here's President Zelensky last week saying that his folks are ready and prepared for the offensive. In my opinion, as of today, we're ready to do it. We would like to have certain things, but we can't wait for months. We strongly believe we will succeed. I don't know

how long it will take. Just a clip from an interview he gave last week. Now watch this second interview and I'll read the subtitles for the benefit of our colleagues that have this on audio only. The second interview, and listen to what he calls President Putin. Any of our Western partners, they have to understand what specifically they are afraid to lose. He is afraid to lose his His constant Soviet-style threats about nuclear weapons. All of these are signs of a weak man. And that's how we have to act.

A cornered animal. He is afraid of losing his life. He must be afraid of the strength of the world. Now, Tony, PR for his political base or serious analysis here? I'm not a psychologist, but this has the earmarks to quote those 51 idiot intelligence officers who did that letter regarding Russia interfering with the Hunter Biden thing. This does actually have the earmarks of psychological projection. The Russians are not cornered. I mean, again, just look at the numbers.

The threat of nuclear weapons relates to essentially reminding the West, it's not about Ukraine, it's about the West, it's about NATO and Europe, saying don't dare actually plan to engage the entire military structure of NATO against me because bad things are going to happen. So that's more about deterrence. And that's a game that the Soviets and Russians do play. Biden, as I've said on your show and others, Biden does not seem to understand the language of the Cold War. And that's what Putin is speaking. And Zelensky apparently is not attuned to that language of what it really means. So I'm just telling you that I don't see you that that that uh I don't see the Russians cornered I don't see them suffering any catastrophic losses that they can't quickly recover from and uh the whole idea that uh yeah this is all Soviet stuff but it's not it's he's uh zolinski is either purposely mischaracterizing it or doesn't understand that, yeah, they're speaking the language of the Cold War and they're being very clear on what to expect if things go forward.

I'll tell you who I think is cornered. And you and I and our colleagues on the show have discussed this many times. And that's Joe Biden. Joe Biden, Tony Blinken, Lloyd Austin, Jake Sullivan, they have the administration in a corner. There's no, I'll keep using this phrase, there's no exit ramp here. I mean, they could negotiate today or negotiate in two years. The difference is 100,000 human lives and a hundred billion American dollars. Right. So to that point there, well, the, the, there is one exit ramp to your point, which is negotiations. My judgment is this, uh, it's time

for Biden, Blinken, Austin to recognize that the suffering of the Ukrainian people is not worth the Victoria Nuland neocon focused effort to weaken Russia. It's not ethical. It's not proper. And, you know, I don't believe you should engage in a war where you are wholesale encouraging the suffering of a whole population. And so that's what I see here. And that's what I see utter disregard by the Biden administration right now. Has the Ukrainian military defied expectations since the Russians haven't seemed to move too much farther west in the past couple of months?

Or is their status quo some part of the Russian plan? I've given this a lot of thought, and let me give you my assessment. So basically, the whole entry of the Russian military into Ukraine was badly done. It was badly done because it wasn't planned well. There was presumptions of certain capabilities which were either underfunded or corrupt within the Russian military. And Putin's belief in his military was not founded. But the reason, Judge, it happened when it did is because, and a lot of people thought it wouldn't happen. I was one of those saying, yeah, no, he's going, he's going, and this is why. I gave assessments why, and he did.

But the primary reason he won is because of the perceived weakness of Joe Biden, because of the serial failures of the Biden administration, they've been unable to do anything to actually show strength. So that's why Putin saw the opportunity and launched. It didn't go well. It didn't go well because, again, he saw weakness on Biden and said, let's go. Biden even said, oh, if it just takes a little bit, it's going to be okay. So Biden actually encouraged the incursion. So the Russians weren't prepared. They did badly. Okay. They've now corrected that. They've had a year to kind of figure out, okay, this is not going to be the cakewalk we thought it was. Gee, where have we heard that before from our own folks? And they're now serious.

They're now committed. And I think the strategy is one of attrition. So I don't think you're going to see massive, you know, blitzkrieg style thrusts into the interior of Ukraine. I think it's more about a game of degradation of Ukraine. And I haven's more about a game of, of degradation of Ukraine. And I haven't seen anything to change my belief on that so far based on what the both sides. Has Russia attorney even been able to take what it claims is legally part of Russia? Well, in other words,

is this war of attrition intentionally of Have the Russians stopped intentionally where they are or are they unable to go farther west? They are not able to go farther west without, I think, creating the perception that they're out to destroy the Ukrainian people. This is there's a very fine line to walk here. Remember, the audience that Putin's speaking to is the Russian people and the rest of the world. He's basically disregarding whatever we think of him. And that's very apparent from his speeches and language he uses. So my belief is they want to be able to create the perception of strength, but strength with restraint. So I think that the best way to do that is like let Ukrainians beat their heads in useless efforts. And then when they're done with that, you can then incrementally move

forward and show that you're trying to do the final thrust into all of these areas you want without trying to be essentially imperial stormtroopers trying to do it. So I think that's, it's a very, it's a, it's a, it's a waltz they're trying to do right now. Here's Secretary of State Blinken last week, just about six or seven days ago in Helsinki. This will get under your skin. As I've made clear by virtually every measure, President Putin's invasion of Ukraine has been a strategic failure. Yet, while Putin has failed to achieve his aims, he hasn't given up on them. He's convinced that he can simply

outlast Ukraine and its supporters, sending more and more Russians to their deaths, inflicting more and more suffering on Ukraine's civilians. He thinks that even if he loses the short game, he can still win the long game. Putin is wrong about this, too. The United States, together with our allies and partners, is firmly committed to supporting Ukraine's defense today, tomorrow, for as long as it takes. Joe Biden's favorite phrase, for as long as it takes. Joe Biden's favorite phrase, for as long as it takes. They can't possibly mean that. They have to be realistic, Tony. If I were Blinken's boss, I would recommend him for a psychological evaluation because

Well, the boss needs one as well, Tony. Yeah, not a word of that has any anchor in the reality which we face right now. The Russians have prevailed in being able to sustain their gains. There's clear evidence that the current offensive is not going to be of the strength necessary to retain or push the Russians out. Everything he said is just fiction. And so I'd look at that as like the fact that he says that indicates to me that Biden is either basically willing to hear bad advice, wants the bad advice, because, again, this is not tied to the reality of

which we're facing. Putin has at least broken even in the short game because he's retained the territory and actually taken back some that they lost from last year. And there's no indication that the Ukrainians have five to one combat superiority necessary to launch successful offensive operations. They just don't have it. The numbers aren't there, Judge. Again, I'm not pro-Russian. I'm just saying based on the tactical configuration of the forces that are there now and the initial battles which have already happened, the Ukrainians have no hope of prevailing. Zero.

None. Is not the standard classical danger of a protracted conflict escalation? Isn't that a realistic fear that the man we just heard, the Secretary of State of the United States, and all of his neocon and globalist buddies, aren't they realistic enough to recognize that? We need to go back and study the Cold War, especially the Cuban Missile Crisis, to understand how dangerous miscalculation and presumption can be. Judd, this is where, I don't know where Blinken studied or what he studied, but he has a fundamental lack of understanding of deterrence. I mean, he does. It's just like, how do you not understand that words matter and how you frame your argument has a great deal of relevance to how your

adversary reacts. Again, this is the language of the Cold War, which Biden does not seem to understand. And the very provocative and I would say mind-numbingly inaccurate language used by Blinken only is going to encourage Putin to continue to do what he's doing. Putin knows what Blinken said is complete nonsense. Putin will not take seriously anything said by Blinken because he knows it's just like not true. So I think the biggest danger to what you're talking about regarding the potential escalation is miscalculation, which I would argue a lot of folks are miscalculating, and then just flat out miscalculation relating to how an adversary is going to react. And this just, I don't, this will not end well for the EU

if the Europeans listen to Tony Blinken and his nonsense. Some of my commenters, the folks that write to us during the show, want me to ask you if there's a realistic probability that the dam was destroyed by the same cabal that destroyed the Nord Stream pipeline. That would be the CIA, the U.S. Navy, and British Special Forces. So I don't know enough about, I mean, like you, Judge, I just, I watched the explanation. It wouldn't take the level of sophistication necessary to do the Nord Stream destruction to take out that dam. That dam, basically anybody who has a basic understanding of explosives, of weak points, of basically if you had the blueprints of the dam, you could figure out where to put the explosives to do that.

It's not that difficult. So I can't assess if it's the same group or not based on the significantly different technologies necessary to do the undersea demolition versus a demolition of a fixed object the size of a dam. All right. So I guess we're just going to have to wait for Cy Hirsch to tell us who blew it up. Yeah, I can't. I mean, I shouldn't. I'm not saying it's not. I mean, it's very possible. I just don't know enough about who did the background of the explosives for the dam. Right.

I mean, I'm chuckling only because he seems to get all of this right before mainstream media. Look, as you know, I know Cy. He was one of the guys that reported on Able Danger early on, trying to get it out. So, you know, I respect his reporting immensely. So I get it. Tony, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Judge. Always great to be here. Thank you. All the best. Morris, we get it. Colonel McGregor, two o'clock today, Eastern Time. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.