Judging Freedom - What did Biden_s tri[p to Ukraine & Poland really Accomplish_

Episode Date: February 23, 2023

Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, February 23rd, 2023. It's about 2.20, 2.23 in the afternoon here on the east coast of the United States. Jack Devine is back with us today. You all know Jack's background. Jack, since we spoke last with respect to the war in Ukraine, President Putin gave a very well-publicized and long-scheduled talk to a lot of leaders of the Russian government and Russian society, and President Biden sort of big-scheduled talk to a lot of leaders of the Russian government and Russian society, and President Biden sort of big-footed him by showing up unannounced, I guess there was some sort of a back channel informing of the Russians' trip to Kiev. People around President Putin were unhappy that President Biden captured international headlines by his trip. But that has happened. According to Colonel McGregor, one of your long-distance nemeses on this show,

the Russians have amassed between three and five hundred thousand infantry on the northern border of Ukraine and are ready to move in once Putin gives the word, which they expect or McGregor expects to happen soon. So we have a lot to talk about. I want to start by running a clip from Secretary General Stoltenberg of NATO claiming that the Ukrainians are using more ammunition than we can supply and more ammunition than we can produce. The war in Ukraine is consuming an enormous amount of ammunition and depleting allied stockpiles. The current rate of Ukraine's ammunition expenditure is many times higher than our current rate of production.

This puts our defense industries under strain. Well, do you agree with that? And if it's true, why would he say it? Absolutely. There's no question. They're firing, I think, something like 60,000 rounds at the same time that we can only produce about 15. Okay, so...

Say 50 or 15? 15,000. I'm just trying to remember the timeframe for it. But there's a gap. Remember, Europe isn't armed to the teeth. This is one of the things that's on the downside. I mean, I think last time we were talking, the Germans have like one week to be able to fight a full-blown war. They've got a lot of talent, but they don't have the infrastructure. So there's a lot of lessons that I think Europe is going to have to beef up its capabilities.

But let me stop for a second and say the Russians are using up ammunition faster than they can produce. And this is why you want to keep an eye on the China-Russia relationship right now, because right now the Chinese are not giving them weapons. So if you want to talk about how they can be helpful to their neighbor, it's the ammunition. Now, all around the world, they're trying to find shells to help sustain this and the weapons. So this is a challenge.

But this is why both armies can only keep at this for so long. There are real logistical issues. But I bet on the West because we had once, look at World War II, once the U.S. decided it was going to make something, they made an awful lot of it, okay? But right now it's a real issue and a battle starting. The little time line here that I think I want to discuss with McGregor, I mean, they started the new advance. It's not, you know, they started.

Now, is it the full advance? And they made a little progress. Now they're losing that ground. I mean, their army is not looking good. The Brits are saying they have 95% of their army committed to this. So a few weeks ago, you were telling me that they were, he and others were saying, oh, they're just going to march right across the plains and Kiev is going to fall. That's not what it looks like. They are still showing tremendous logistical shortcomings, they are in trouble. And let's go back to the

ammunition. If they're shooting 60,000 rounds a day and we're supplying 15,000 rounds, it's not very long before they run out. Yeah, I don't think I want to say a day, and that's what I'm saying. I'm not sure what the time frame was on that, but there was a gap between our production of 15 and when they were expending it, whether it was a week, day, or rather not. We didn't keep the notes on that, but I'm just saying there's a gap between production and being utilized, but it's the same thing is true on the Russian side. Okay. Last week, Congressman Michael McCaul of the House Armed Services Committee led a delegation, a bipartisan delegation of members of the House to Kiev. And he was interviewed briefly on an airplane tarmac by my former Fox colleague, Trey Yankst.

Here's the interview. The plan right now from the administration is just enough to bleed through the winter and spring, but not enough for victory. We need to give them enough for victory. What does he mean to bleed them and not enough for victory? What does victory mean? Taking Moscow? I mean, there's a couple of things that need to be done. That's a great question.

If we were to ask Joe Biden what victory means, expelling the Russians from Ukraine and Crimea, not feasible. Expelling Putin from office, not feasible. I don't know what victory is. Well, you want to ask me? Yes, sure. First, I want you to comment on Congressman McCaul and bleeding them dry. And that seems to be consistent with you. And then I want you to tell me what would be victory here for Joe Biden and the Americans?

People would find it worthwhile to read history. You know, bleed the Russians. I mean, go read history. I mean, Hitler gave it his best, right? It's not that easy, all right? Bleed them and so on. I mean, I think the strategic thing is we are responding to a Russian assault on the West. And what has happened is it's stunning that he can't take Ukraine. If he took on Europe, he would really be wiped off on the ground. And again, there's always a nuclear, but I'm saying he is showing a very weak army. It's an embarrassment to him. And, you know, if he were to go to Poland, I'm betting on the Poles holding back at least as well as the Ukrainians. So bleeding them. I think the issue is, you know, you push until the Russians cease and desist.

Now, I don't believe there's peace. Right. But I do think you'll reach a point where everyone's using up so much ammunition, so many soldiers have died, that you slow down the pace of war. No one wins. I said, we're still at war with North Korea. So war could go on for a long time, but it will not go on for a long time at this level. And victory, for me, the real ultimate victory is not about Ukraine. It's the geopolitical risk of the world today, and it's the China, Russia, and their allies, the alliance against the West. If Russia fails to accomplish its goal, I'm sticking with my Wall Street Journal op-ed of 3 March of a year ago,

that he will go, and that will change the geopolitical. There's a bigger thing at play here than just the current day-to-day fighting. And I think there's a world that's going to be unstable if we allow Putin to go unchallenged. And I think we're doing a very good job of challenging him. And I take my hat off every day to how incredibly tough the Ukrainians are and how much they're willing to take. The Russians better look at them, bleeding them dry too. They're not easy to bleed dry either.

Gary, President Biden, tell me what you think of this comment, Jack. Brutality will never grind down the will of the free. And Ukraine, Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia. Never. Hyperbole, hyperbole or realistic, Jack? No, listen, I do not believe, I have never believed that the Russians would subjugate the Ukrainians. I was off because I didn't think Putin was going to actually be crazy enough to run across the border. And look, that was a bad mistake. No matter how you look at it, he can't look at it like that was one of the great strategic moves of his life. But I was thinking we'd end up with an insurgency.

Like Afghanistan, the Ukrainians are not going to give up. He is not going to subjugate them. We are not going to let that happen. Europe has had land wars. They cannot let Putin prevail. So yeah, I agree with that, but that's not, I've been saying that long before the president of the United States said it. I don't think we can beat the Ukrainians. Suppose you define a Russian victory as retention of the East, particularly Donbass and certainly Crimea, and that's enough to satisfy Putin. Does he win? Does he declare victory and go home? He will declare if he only gets one foot of territory, right? He's going to declare. Right now he has 17% of Ukraine. That's certainly more than one foot. He could declare victory

tomorrow. No. Well, he could declare victory tomorrow and go home, right? He could go home and say he won. And he might be able to sell it to his people. But you know it wasn't a win. Everybody knows it wasn't a win. It wasn't his objective, right? And he controlled most of that territory before this conflict started. What do you think his objective was, Jack? I honestly thought he thought he would subjugate the... He was told, his intelligence people told him, you'll be met with flowers. There were Russian intelligence officers renting rooms

for their stay in Kiev. They had no idea of what they were up against. I don't know what they were basing their analysis on. But he was sold a bag of goods. So now he just has to get out of there where

the fighting slows down and it looks like, oh, I've held the east. Right now, the Ukrainians aren't even prepared to settle for that. Here he is two days ago on who started all this. The Kiev regime provided artillery and aviation and other weapons to attack Donbass back in 2014. In 2015, they attempted again to directly attack Donbass. They continued shelling terror in relation to citizens.

All of this was completely against the documents that were accepted by the United Nations Security Council. I would like to repeat, they started the war and we used the force in order to stop it. It seems like... You know what's interesting, Judge? I've never seen... Hang on, Jack. Hang on. I haven't seen the tape. 82% of the Russian population agrees with him. You know what? Go back and roll the tape and look at the audience. Well, they look like mannequins.

Did you see one person shake their head? Yes, that's right, President. Yes, smile. Yes, you're right. There's not, it's like every, look at it. Everyone has a stone face like, yeah, okay, we're all going to pretend that's right. All right, Gary, roll the tape again of that same one. The Kiev regime provided artillery and aviation and other weapons to attack Donbass back in 2014. In 2015, they attempted again to directly attack Donbass.

They continued shelling terror in relation to citizens. All of this was completely against the documents that were accepted by the United Nations Security Council. I would like to repeat, they started the war, and we used the force in order to stop it. Did you see a single person show any sign? Well, Jack, they're not Irish, they're Russian. They don't show their emotion. Let me tell you, in front of your audience, if it was live and we were in front of them, you would see an awful lot of body action on what you said and what I said. That audience said, I've been trained not to show any reaction here. I'm not saying one word.

Run the next one. It's a hard thing to sell. Some of the people believe it. Run the next one where Putin refers to the American demand to inspect Russian nuclear weapons as theater of the absurd. In the beginning of February this year, there was a statement from the North Atlantic Alliance factually demanding that Russia returns to the Strategic Arms Treaty as they call it, including allowing inspections of our nuclear defense facilities. I don't even know what to call it. It's a theater of the absurd. Regarding this, I have to say that Russia suspends its participation in the New START treaty. They all knew the clap on that one, right?

You finally saw some emotion. I think you're being unduly harsh on a guy that kills women. You know how he's running his forces on the ground? Hey, Jack, let me finish my statement. You're being unduly harsh on a culture radically different from ours. They don't laugh. They don't smile. They don't agree. They applaud when they think it's the right time to applaud. Right. So you can't, you know, so I'm sorry, Judge. The point is

that the Russians, well, look, they've been through centuries of misery, right? And they're used to it. But so is Eastern Europe and so is Europe. I'm just saying his song and dance, I'm sure he sells it somewhere in this country. He sells it to some of his folks. The people didn't agree, left. A lot of the best in that country have already backed up and left. And he sells this argument that we provoke the invasion. I mean, good. I mean, I just, I don't even know how to respond to the ludicrous. If

you want to talk about the mirrors of absurdity, there you are. Okay. All right. Is it realistic that intelligence agencies would have spoken to each other before Biden arrived in Kiev so that the Russians would know not to bomb wherever he, or to attack wherever he was in Kiev? I picked up on that when you mentioned at the very beginning and I stopped and thought about that. I know I wouldn't have. And I wonder if they did. I wouldn't trust them. Okay. I wouldn't trust them. And I would be confident enough that we could get him in and out in a way in which he wouldn't think I would do that. If we had normal relations, if we didn't have a war, then that would be a smart thing to do for sure. I wouldn't trust them. I wouldn't trust them. Jake Sullivan, whom I don't trust, that's the president's national security advisor, announced that we did inform Russian authorities after he had landed in Poland and as the train was starting to take him toward Kiev. So I'm thinking maybe there's some courtesy that you express. You're telling me, no,

you wouldn't trust them. I wouldn't. But I mean, I don't doubt that that happened. And, you know, I just wouldn't take a chance. Right. So it worked fine. I mean, if they did that and they got in and they didn't fire at him, it would have been a huge mistake for the Russians to do anything. I can't imagine they wouldn't want to do anything. It would have been a catastrophic, catastrophic mistake. Yeah, but I think firing under President of the United States is non-trivial. Right. I said it would be catastrophic.

So I don't think they would do it. I just wouldn't trust them to cause problems. It wouldn't be that he would get necessarily hurt but cause problems. What would be a definition? Have bombings around the city. What would be a definition of victory for the Ukraine side that President Zelensky will accept? Well, the way they define it is all the original territory, right? Crimea, Donbass.

I mean, that's their position, right? That's not realistic, is it? I'm just saying, you asked me, that's their going in position. If you were mediating this, what would you tell President Zelensky would be an acceptable face-saving point at which to stop the hostilities? I wouldn't begin mediation right now. I would wait until this big push comes. And my view is he's going to leave with not much to show for it. And then you're in a situation where you might start negotiation.

At this point, there's nothing negotiated. He doesn't want to move. The Ukrainians don't want to move. What's the negotiation? You're just wasting your time. So are we talking about a land war that could go on for two, three, four, five years? No, what I keep trying to stress when I talk to people is I don't think he can stay at this level. The war could go on. We're still at war with North Korea, but, you know, I will not stay at this level. What level does it settle into? And, you know, if Putin fails, why is he going to come back the next time? He's going to have to improve his army before he can make another run at it. So I don't expect it to stay at this level, but I do not expect a peace agreement. I do not foresee a written agreement. I think it'll be just a silent agreement that, you know, we're only going to fire so many shells a day at each other.

That's my rough estimate. Where do you think we'll be? There's a major breakthrough on either side. Where do you think we'll be in four or five months? The same stalemate where we are now? By stalemate, I mean neither side much progress no i think he fails in this uh again we can you can come back to me on the record for the second time with you on this i do not think they will accomplish their objective this time so he has to go back and convince his people again that he won and it's worth let's

leave a few more prisoners out if there's a few left. Also watch the fact that the Wagner group and the generals are now, you know, spitting at each other. That's not a good sign. You know, now the Wagner group backed off a little bit, but there's your signs of internal tension. When you're winning, everybody's happy. When you're losing, everybody's blaming everybody else for everything. This is not a good sign if you're Putin. Well, on that, I agree with you. Why would that blame game be going on in public? I mean, in America, if Tony Blinken and Lloyd Austin had a dispute, hopefully it wouldn't be on Meet the Press.

It's a weakness. I mean, that's another weakness that actually surfaced in public domain by them. I think the Wagner Group is a little more dangerous than people thought. If I were Putin, I understand they're providing the security for them, and I'd have somebody watching them. So I think there's a lot of – look at the logistics. I keep coming back to this look at the

logistics and how poor they are I mean this is unbelievable this recent round they're now once again showing bad leadership I'm surprised it's as bad as it is Jack Devine always a pleasure

whether we agree or not. Love your insight. My audience, well, they turn in when you're on. Look how boring it would be if we both agreed and your audience were nodding your head at, or if they had those frozen faces. I guarantee you there's nobody in your audience that has a frozen face when we talk. Jack, when we finish this, I'm going to do a little thank you to the audience, and you are partially

responsible for this. It's a good thing. Today we broke 100,000 subscriptions. That puts us in a very nice category of international podcasters. Thank you for helping us. I hope you'll stay with us, Jack. All the best, my dear friend. It's a great pleasure to have your audience,

frankly, that you can have a candid discussion without yelling at each other and trying to tackle issues seriously. So I compliment you and your audience. Thank you, my dear friend. Judge DePaul Tano for judging freedom.