Judging Freedom - Ukraine Pilots in U.S. - Dangerous Escalation_ - Jack Devine

Episode Date: March 6, 2023

Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, March 6, 2023. It's a few minutes after four o'clock in the afternoon here on the east coast of the United States. Jack Devine is back with us today. Jack, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for joining us. Good to be a guest again with you, Judge. Thank you. Since last we spoke, Victoria Nuland, who is either number two or three in the State Department, has opined that this is the first time I've heard this, now maybe you've heard it from other sources in the government, I don't know, that the goal of the government is to remove Russian influence from Ukraine, which includes Crimea. Now I've been

chastising the President saying, Mr. President, what is your goal? Is it removal of Russian troops? I don't think that's militarily feasible. And you might have agreed your goal? Is it removal of Russian troops? I don't think that's militarily feasible. And you might have agreed with that. Is it removal of Vladimir Putin from office? I think only the Russian people can do that, Mr. President. You might have agreed with that. But Mrs. Nuland, arguably, this you won't agree with, the architect of the 2014 coup, nevertheless, has said we will use force if necessary to remove the Russians from Crimea. Do you agree that that is a rational thing to say, or is this just sort of a trial balloon to see if the public and the Congress will accept it? Just for point of clarification, who would use force in the Crimea? The Ukrainians certainly, if she's talking U.S. troops anywhere in the fray,

I think that isn't consistent with the policy Congress wishes or the EU. So getting the Crimea back, first of all, you've got to win. You've got to be on a roll before you get to the Crimea, right? In other words, so the point is if you get the Russians back on their heels far enough to Crimea, you just keep pushing. Now, when you say you, and I understand what you're saying, you're talking about the Ukrainians. You're not talking about American troops on the ground or American jets in the air. It was as if I were talking to Ukrainians. In other words, if you get them, and if anyone's recommending and advising them, if you really want to break the back of Putin, you take the Crimea.

But that's a big ask. I mean, we've got to get through the summer. We've got to get through holding the ground. But the Russians are taking a tremendous beating. Now, the Ukrainians are also suffering great losses and we can't lose sight of that the crimea is the place where putin would not really cannot make any sort of agreement whatsoever he has to be beaten on that one if that's our goal i think as i was saying to you the last time, Judge, I think there's a bigger issue. He started this fight, but what he's unleashed is a change of the geopolitical situation worldwide.

So we need to have a strategy about how we deal with that. It's not all about the Ukraine. And I've been on record from March of last year that once Putin did this, he really can't be part of the international community. He has to go. Now, that's not for me to say. That's for the Russian people, as you rightfully pointed out. But the goal is you have to stop his aggression. And I was listening to a fellow the other day who was talking about how the Russians,

their strategy is always to keep going west. So if you don't stop it, it'll keep going. But it's not feasible to imagine American troops invading Ukraine, either on the ground or from F-16s, is it? Because Mrs. Newland, I'm going to call it Secretary Newland, hinted. I've written two books, which you have promoted very effectively for me, but both of them have the same thesis. Do not put American troops on the ground. You know, the indigenous people have to be prepared to fight. And, you know, the Ukrainians are prepared to fight. You support them to the hill, hilt. But the point is, there is no reason to put American troops in there at this point. But we should be doing everything short of that to push back and save, you know, save for our sake that Putin doesn't take over the

Ukraine because he's not going to stop there. The biggest contributors, by the way, proportionately are all the countries bordering on Russia because they know they're the next, they're in the lion's mouth next. If you had been Secretary Blinken and you had a chance for 10 minutes with Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia, as was the case last week when the two of them were in Mumbai, India, would you have said, hey, Sergei, let's talk? Or would you have said, hey, Sergei, we're in this for as long as it takes? And then Sergei walks away. I mean, which is the more prudent diplomatic communication between the top American diplomat and the top Russian diplomat? Diplomacy is not always the right answer. So I do believe in negotiating. I do believe in talking. I know you do.

And I said that's why I'm pushing you on this. Right. And that's where I talked so extensively about we needed to get it straight with the Russians, you know, for the last five or six years and talk to them, make sure we're having private discussions. Once he crossed the border, Mox Nix, I'm not so sure. I'm almost tempted to say I would turn my back on them. Okay. But your alternative would be my second pick, which is, look, we're in it. You want to be in it? Okay. Let's have at it, but don't make any mistake. We're all in. All right. So I actually think I would ostracize them at every occasion. I would take their calls.

They're not prepared. There is no negotiation. If you believe there's a negotiation, Judge, go to the table. I do not believe there's a deal that can be made now. Now, maybe later, if they do as poorly, some of the indications of the big offensive are really not showing well for the russians i mean we're talking about one one one town as if that that wins a war and even there the ukrainians pushed him back really hard this week so he's they've got a lot of terror you want to talk about taking crimea's hard you got to go to the kremlin and talk about, well, how hard is it to take Ukraine? Really hard. They're never going to give up. The media is reporting that this morning, and I don't know where this is happening because I don't know where this is done, two Ukraine jet pilots are in the U.S. beginning their training on F-16s.

I guess that means the Biden administration is planning really to up the ante because if we give them F-16s, they can attack Moscow. Sure looks like it. I would make sure that the gas didn't extend to Moscow, but yeah, I think they're doing the right thing. Now, I think there was trepidation at the beginning by those professionals that followed us because they thought the Russians were going to do better, and they were concerned about, you know, the repercussions, and we've drug into NATO. But when the Polish deal, when they were going to offer the F-23s, and there was hesitation, do you remember that? I vacillated to my shame, vacillating. Well, you know, we don't want to push him too hard.

Until I went to the mountain and started, why would we want to push him as hard as we can? What's he going to do? So my point today is he is pushing his heart. He's bombing, you know, he's trying to obliterate Ukraine. He's, you know, trying to level it, right? So why not? What is he going to do if you put the F-13s?

What's he going to do if you put the tanks? He's going to bring a new fancy army in? He's going to call up another 500,000 people that'll be cut to shreds? I mean, what is he going to do? You say, well, nuclear. Well, I don't think we're there. When we get there, we can revisit it. But right now, I think we push as hard as we can with everything we have. Do you have any hesitation about the sacrifice of American lives in Ukraine? Do you not fear this becoming another Vietnam? Well, that was our big mistake, Judge. Remember, we always go in as an advisory group, right? That's the way we are now until all the Joe's decide to send more boys in.

You know, if the locals, again, I want to put this marble on my grave. I was going to say he was a nice guy, but instead I think I'm going to put on my graves. Do not go in and fight unless the indigenous people are prepared to die to the last person, right? Then maybe you can consider it. And America has to be attacked directly. That's the other caveat. And we haven't been directly attacked. So I am saying, Theo, I see no reason why American troops should go in, but NATO and the US are united in making sure that Putin doesn't eat up not only Ukraine, Eastern Europe, where he's going to be the world's

biggest menace in your lifetime. Okay. where he's going to be the world's biggest menace in your lifetime. Okay. You said America needs to be attacked directly. Before we go in, I agree with you. You know that Putin has not attacked America, has not threatened to attack America, is not stupid enough to attack America. You better not attack Poland. Okay. That was my next question. What about Article 5 of NATO? Should American troops enter the Ukraine war if, as Dmitry Medvedev, whom you know or know of, once the president of Russia between several of Putin's terms, said, we'll go all the way to the Polish border and farther west if we have to.

Well, if he goes farther west, that's... Was he wearing a helmet when he said that? I don't think so. He should be. In fact, you're not wearing a helmet. Yeah, because... I'm not wearing one because I don't need one. He needs one.

If he's going to do that, he needs it. I don't. Should American troops be on the ground in Ukraine if Russia attacks a NATO country? Well, every administration since World War II has stood by that if a NATO country is attacked, we will respond. I think the Biden administration has very clearly supported the same thing the Trump administration did. We're going to stand behind our commitment to NATO because it's in our interest. If he goes into Poland and goes in, you remember there was a guy named Adolf that did this.

I know this. So Putin is made of the same ilk. There's many of the same similarities in his personality and vision and who he is and his role in the world. It's big. It's really big. It's bigger than, you know, it's hard to beat some of our American politicians in terms of ego and their sense of mission and destiny, but Putin will outshine any of them when it comes to his ego and how he sees himself and his role in the world. We have HIMARS, which is some sort of sophisticated missile system, on the ground in Ukraine. We have American troops out of uniform operating the HIMARS.

We have them literally maneuvering them. We have American troops in uniform in Poland choosing the targets on computer for the high Mars, and we have American troops in uniform in Poland pulling the trigger, so to speak. I understand it's a lot of buttons and switches, but whatever it is, we'll just call it a trigger for the sake of our conversation. Is that sort of inviting Putin to attack? Let me finish the question. Jack, is that inviting Putin to attack Americans? I do not know that to be accurate, that we are actually pulling the trigger in any location, okay? I don't know that to be true. Maybe it's true. I just personally do not know that's accurate, okay? And your point is, let me go back in history to when we were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. You don't think they didn't realize where the weapons were coming from or how they were being trained?

Well, nobody knows Afghanistan the way you do, Jack, but that was the death throes of the Soviet Union. That was not Putin with a modern army. Am I right? Well, first of all, I dispute he has a modern army. He's now demonstrating the world he doesn't have a modern army. He has a lot of modern weapons. Well, he has a more modern army now than he had in the Afghan than Gorbachev had in the Afghan days. Yeah, but, Judge, look at what the Afghanis had, AK-47s.

Look at what technology has done for the Ukrainians and all the sophisticated technology from drones to, I mean, the cyber intelligence. I mean, his army is not showing itself very well. I mean, and I think it's a surprise to all of us, although this is the second time I've been surprised, because when I went in to do the Afghan program, I was assured they were 10 feet tall, and then every day they shrunk a quarter of an inch. So it's, I don't think, I think what's showing here, and I think it's the big story, and it's a very dangerous one for him, is how poor his army, he has paramilitary functioning as his cutting edge because his own army, now they're fighting. Remember, Judge, you heard it

here. You and I talked about dissent and how the things crumble when you start to lose. Watch the dynamic between the Wagner group and the military. It's dangerous. Tell me how Wagner operates. or use a private army funded by an oligarch largely out of the chain of command, operating on its own with ruthless skill and determination, as opposed to a full army under the chain of command? Well, I think Stalin's rolling in his grave. The idea that you hire a private army is not a sign of strength, Judge. You know, when you have an army, you know, you can have special forces like we do or special ops.

You can have all of that, but it's under the chain of command of the military. Having a paramilitary is not – we used it during Afghanistan and other times because we didn't have our army, right? We didn't want our army to be exposed, okay? But when you have an army that has fought in World War I and World War II, and you say, no, we need a private army, you know, made up of a lot of convicts, right? So it's a sign of tremendous weakness. And I think I was thinking of this the other day, talking to one of my colleagues. You know, Putin has to worry about his far right. He has to worry about the Wagner Group and the tension

between the military. I never said how he's going to go. But I do think one of the scenarios that's starting to come up is some disagreement about who's running this war between the Wagner Group and the military could lead to him being caught in a squeeze play. How big is the Wagner Group? Are we talking about a few thousand? Are we talking about tens of thousands? No, I don't know the exact number, but we're talking tens of thousands, yeah.

Tell me about your... They're all around the world, by the way, Judge. They're not just fighting in Ukraine. I mean, they're in Africa. I mean, they've been... It's a very unusual model to be coexisting with an active military. Well, who funds them? Does Prokosian fund them, the oligarch that wants to replace Putin,

or does the Russian government fund them? Private sources can't fund this, in my opinion. Private sources do fund or do not fund? Cannot. Cannot. It's too big. What are your former colleagues telling the president in the daily briefings he gets about the war? We have, as you know. The truth come on, their job, according to Mike Pompeo, the former director, their job is to steal secrets and lie about it. We'll talk about that. Let me, you put a marker down. Let me respond to that one. That is true outside of the U.S. and outside the U.S. judicial system. I had a I had a professional lawyer at my elbow for the last 15

years of my career and I wasn't unique. In other words, this is a very important concept. I know we're getting off on this, but the audience needs to understand how much the CIA is internally regulated so that it isn't the swashbuckling group around the world. It's less exciting because it does play by the rules. And telling the truth, anybody that tells you that the best thing to do is the lie that Congress or the president of the United States should be fired on the spot. All right. Does the CIA that speaks to the president, I guess, very high ranking people, do they tell him what they think he wants to hear? Or are they telling him the raw data

that's coming from agents in the field? It's not raw data. Let me, every once in a while- Or are they analyzing raw data? No, no, but sometimes- Are they putting spin on it to make old Joe feel good, to reinforce his preconceived notions? Sometimes they will bring in a piece of raw data to show, in other words, this is a really

neat operation that took place. But the normal product is a very polished synthesis of not just human, but technology satellites. In other words, it's a very sophisticated product, and it's not relying on the operator like me to give his opinion and judgment. It's on analysts that have studied it. So when the president gets that, it's their best judgment. But they should never recommend policy.

Their job is to bring it back. You used a technical term. You used a technical term. I know what it is and what it means, but I want you to define it. SIGINT. Yes, signals intelligence. So in the intelligence community around the world, one of the big endeavors going back to World War I is try and intercept other people's mail, the communications. Well, today it is so robust and also it's digital, right? So if you'll remember, it wasn't our finest hour, but they were in the United Nations making a case about Iraq, and they brought in the intercept of a couple of colonels, which usually we do not divulge

information. So if you're on the open radio or if you're in a, often history books are written about codes that are broken. So that's what signals intelligence is. Okay. So when you and I email each other, are your former colleagues monitoring what we're saying? If so, they should go to jail. The reason is CIA is not authorized to collect intelligence on any American. Now, there are several categories, but you have to get a court order. I'm aware of all that. I'm also aware of FBI agents testifying under oath that the CIA does their dirty work for them in the U.S. Because they have the means to do it. Did you get that under oath if the CIA does their dirty work for them in the U.S. Because they have the means to do it. Did you get that under oath?

Did you get that under oath? Did you get that under oath? Well, I assume it's under oath. It's in a federal courtroom. I would say it's nonsense, okay? Bring me in as an expert witness and I will say nonsense, okay? Jack, always a pleasure. We'll have you back soon, Whether there's a turn in events

Or whether it's the same thing happening We appreciate As you know, my fans love to Comment on your insight I know they do And I remember at the beginning of the discussion You telling me that one said Jack, strike back

And you did Thank you, Jack, all the best Never draw blood, but I strike back. Right. And you did. And you did. Thank you, Jack. All the best. Never draw blood, but I strike back. There you go. Morris, we get it. Judge Paul Tano for judging freedom. All right.

Thank you.