Judging Freedom - Zelenskyy admits Offensive is Slow_ Putin says Nukes are Ready - Col Tony Shaffer

Episode Date: June 21, 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.

Thank you for watching. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, June 21st, 2023. It's about a little after 11 o'clock in the morning here on the east coast of the United States. Tony Schaefer will be with us in just a minute and we'll be talking about how well when it comes to an offensive going and did you know that the Ukrainians and the Russians actually did have some peace negotiations back in February of 2022 which obviously didn't work out. All that right after this. When it comes to carrying valuables or even firearms in your vehicle, most people feel they have to choose between safety and convenience. A vehicle break-in occurs every 36 seconds in

America. The Headrest Safe gives you the power to store cash, jewelry, medication, and yes, even your concealed carry firearm. You'll never have to worry about taking your valuables with you again. Keep them safe with the Headrest Safe. Use promo code JUDGENAP and enjoy $50 off for a limited time at theheadrestsafe.com. Tony Schaefer, welcome back to the show. Always a pleasure, my dear friend. Good to be here. From public sources and your own sources, how's the Ukrainian spring offensive going?

The best metaphor I can use for the spring offensive is, I'll just use a scale of between one to ten ten being good one being bad it's about a three three and a half because for three reasons first it seems completely unorganized there seems to be no focus or plan behind it it appears like they're just throwing things at the Russian lions and hoping for the best. Theoretically, they're trying to probe and find weaknesses, but the way they're doing it, they're actually attriting their forces much quicker than they could ever acquire critical mass to take advantage of a weakness. Secondly, they seem completely unfazed by the fact they're doing this during broad daylight, when they're most vulnerable.

And every time I've seen an engagement, they get whacked. I mean, whacked hard, too. Are the Russians taking casualties? Absolutely. But from what I can see is that the Ukrainians are taking probably three times more casualties because the Russians are coming at them from positions of defense, defensive positions. The most important reason I think, and I think it's obvious that they're not doing well, is because the basic requirements for offensive operations were not met to begin with. You don't have air superiority. You don't have large and sustained indirect fire

weapons like artillery that are available to bring to bear any focused force you need to break through a line. So therefore, at this point, as far as I can tell, they've not even reached the first line of the Russian defensives. And they've done this for, I think, almost two weeks now. So why do the offensive? Is this a tactical military decision made by experienced military commanders or a political decision made by President Zelensky and his advisors? This is a political decision because the most most damaging thing judge the ukrainians could do to the russians is do nothing go on the defensive make the russians come to you and they're not doing that and so it's kind of like uh the the harder they push that is the ukrainians the more they sustain overwhelming injury and loss and anybody who would be advising them right now,

if they're a reasoned military experts, and I've gone through my team, we talked about this a little bit yesterday. Offensive operations, when you don't have overwhelming numeric advantage or the elements that are required, such as air superiority, artillery superiority, all these things that need to be present for success, then it's insane. It's a

suicide, literally it's a suicide mission. So I don't know who's advising it. All right. So you read my mind. I mean, like Eisenhower on D-Day. Yes. Don't you have to have two to one, three to one numerical advantage, whereas here we have like have 2 to 1, 3 to 1 numerical advantage Whereas here We have like a 10 to 1 numerical disadvantage Is that numbers fair? Yeah, they are So this is what I think

What they were going for Again, I'm not there on the battlefield I'm not in the Pentagon's war room But what they were going for Badly, by the way Is the idea that Okay, we're never going to have overwhelming We're never going to have 3 to 1 But what we were going for, badly, by the way, is the idea that, okay, we're never going to have overwhelming, we're never going to have three to one. But what we can try to do is tactical three to one. Like, for example, if you have a breakthrough, you will be able to move forces

over rapidly to at least at that spot on the battlefield, Judge, acquire three to one, four to one advantage in that spot not not the overall battlefield but net one spot to cause a breakthrough that's the theory but there's there's two things you need for that you need rapid mobility you need air superiority you need uh command and control which has to be razor sharp so you can issue commands and have commands uh acknowledged and acted on within minutes if you're going to take advantage of a break and so that's I think the theory that's why we gave them all the Bradleys but I watched a video this morning of one of these knuckleheads no offense to the Ukrainian military I know they're taking it on

a chin but some guy just kind of driving down the road it was like a gay it was like a call of battle he was shooting randomly into the forest all this 25 millimeter fires like wow talk about a monumental waste of ammunition against nothing so what i see would be logical regarding trying to acquire a three-to-one advantage at certain tactical spots to do a breach they're not even doing that so i'm just saying i don't know who's advising here's uh the famous general david petraeus back on June 6th, so it's two weeks ago, with his predictions on the likely success, and he gives reasons for it, which I think you'll disagree with, on the Ukrainian offensive. are very much ready for this. They'll be very distinctive because they will be using, employing Western tanks, Western infantry fighting vehicles in large measure for the first time in this war, certainly in this number. I think the Russians will prove to be more brittle than the expectation is. Keep in mind, these units have been in combat for over a year, many of them. They have not been

pulled offline to reconstitute by having forces replaced, equipment replaced and repaired, and then doing training before they go back. They just get individual replacements to fill the gap. They're not well-trained. They're not well-equipped. They're not well-led. And I think that these Ukrainian forces, which are well-trained, are well-equipped, are going to break through.

And then you might see a real dynamism to the battlefield that could give real opportunities to the ukrainians to exploit where does he come off with this the russians are not well trained not well led not well equipped they're probably the best trained best led best equipped military in the world go for it. Everything he says is a disadvantage. First point, and we talked about this last time. He points out rightly that the Ukrainians are being trained for the first time ever on Western gear. Judge, you mentioned D-Day. Our allies trained on our equipment for a full year and engaged in combat operations before they went into combat using our gear. It wasn't like they picked it up in two months and went off with it.

So the idea that somehow people who are ill-trained, not experienced with new technology is an advantage is insane. I don't know where David Petraeus gets this, but I would have hoped David was a smarter man. This is a disadvantage. And you're saying, oh, this is a great thing. This goes back to the mentality that they have right now, Judge, the silver bullet mentality. If we just give them this one new technology, they're going to win. This is insane. I can't believe a man with Petraeus' academic background is saying this level of nonsense.

I could say some other words that would get you in trouble, and I'm not going to do that. But I mean, this is up there with Joe Biden saying, God save the Queen. I mean, I'm serious. This is that bad. All right. So here's the thing. Let me judge one other thing real quick, because I know you want me to hit this, the battle issue. Oh, these people have been in battle for a year. Yes, they've got experience now. The Russians have amassed a lot of experience they didn't have in the initial entry into Ukraine. I would argue Joe Biden saying flat out that, oh, Putin takes a little bit, we'll be fine with that. I think that more than anything else had the effect of encouraging Putin to go and go before he was ready. Now they're ready. Now they've been able to call up reserves and do all this strengthening. And all of these reserves, he says, are not well-trained, don't have to be trained because they're going into cadres, which are well-trained, well-experienced and actually doing effective

fighting. Everything he says is opposite. It's like the opposite. It's like the anti-matter Dave Petraeus. Here he is again at the very end of this clip. He thinks the silver bullet are the F-16s. Take a listen. But there should be a very solid path to NATO membership that's provided at the Vilnius summit on 11 July. But in the meantime, the focus should be on enabling Ukraine to the greatest extent that we possibly can so that the Ukrainians can prove to Putin that the Russians will not be able to out-suffer the Ukrainians. And also, we prove they won't be able to out-suffer the Europeans and the Americans as well. Does this include F-16 jets?

Oh, absolutely. We should have made the decision to transition to Western aircraft long ago. Again, this was inevitable. Well, maybe it's true because he knows, as do you, and you taught us this, Tony, how long it takes to train a pilot who's accustomed to flying a Soviet MiG to begin flying an F-16. That's right. So imagine the problems we're seeing now with just military equipment, basic gear on the battlefield, at the tactical level, at the soldier level. Imagine that an order of magnitude more difficult when you go to aviation. Aviation, look, I could learn to drive a Bradley. When I was a young lieutenant, I used to drive for the cavalry just because it was fun. M113s and other armor,

M60s, they were fun to drive. I figured it out in 10 minutes. You can do that with gear. You can't do that with aviation. And so the idea here that we're already seeing they're not doing well with equipment at the vehicle level. You can only imagine what's going to happen with F-16. So this is, again, insanity. This is not rational. This is not helpful. This is just going to get more people killed on both sides. And trust me on this, Judge, the Russians know misery. They can take misery a long time. So just saying. We're going to take a break. When we come back, we'll talk. Well, I'll show you a clip from President Zelensky's chief of staff about secret negotiations, which apparently did take place and the circumstances under which they might take place in the future. Negotiations for peace seems inconceivable. Right after this.

The headrest safe is quick and easy to use. Some may even call it a game changer. The Headrest Safe acts as a safety net, protecting your belongings while keeping them out of sight and out of bounds of others, serving us security while also keeping your valuables in bounds. That's what the Headrest Safe provides for me. Game, set, match.

General Ben Hodges, I think you probably know him, the recently retired four-star who was the commander-in-chief of all American forces in Europe. I don't know him, but I know who he is. Okay, you know who he is. He actually said last weekend, and this is, in my view, as insane as what we just saw from General Petraeus. I don't know why these guys say this stuff. I know why they say it. Ukraine can liberate Crimea. Tony, that is inconceivable.

Judge, to your point, these people are all compromised by money. These guys retire. They get huge paychecks. You know, you get those stars on your shoulder. You start thinking you're smarter than everybody. I was once told by a general officer who recognized their own weakness, that somehow they believe their rank is equivalent to wisdom, and it's not. And they get paid a lot of money to say these things,

to promote a narrative, not a reality. We don't have warfighting generals who are willing to say the truth anymore. Very few. And the ones who are warfighters are staying out of this because they see it as political right now. And I hate to be that critical of some people I know, but they are. So you're left with these people who are essentially politicians in uniform. Hodges, Petraeus, all these guys have decided they're going to take money over integrity. And that's why you see completely insane, provably false concepts of doctrine

that will have no effect on the battlefield. These people are not serious. They are intellectual midgets if they actually promote what they're doing right now. No more college student, no more college student would ever suggest what they're suggesting right now and believe somehow it's a rational course of action for a commander. Here's another politician in uniform. It's, you know, it's the Zelensky uniform. This is Andre Yermak, President Zelensky's chief of staff being interviewed by the editor-in-chief of the Wall Street Journal. It's very, I think, very newsworthy what he says because he's revealing that negotiations did take place in February of 22. That's when the war started. But he sets down what conditions there will be for negotiations in the future. The Wall Street Journal asks, the Wall Street

Journal editor asks her questions in English. He answers in Ukraine. So I will be reading the subtitles for the benefit of our friends that are experiencing judging freedom on audio. Here we go. You tried to negotiate some sort of truce or deal before the war, and that obviously didn't work. What lessons have you learned from that about how you deal with the Russians? I remember how the Russian delegation acted.

Everything that they couldn't achieve through pressure during these many hours of negotiations, they attempted to achieve through military means. On February 24, 2022, Ukraine will never compromise our country's territorial integrity. As a result, there will be no negotiations with the Russians as long as their troops remain here. Well, what does remain here mean? Is that the General Hodges, Victoria Nuland, that here means Crimea? Yes. Is it just as unrealistic because they mean eastern Ukraine, the Donbass area, 90% of which is now controlled by the Russians?

What does he mean by here, Tony? Well, no, I think they mean Crimea. I mean, that's one of the things that's been on the table. I think that's why there were violations of the Minsk Accords back when that happened, when they were actually trying to settle things. I don't think either side was actually recognizing that. And let me be clear here. I don't doubt what he's saying regarding the Russian way of negotiations. I've said this before.

The Russians have the attitude, what's ours is ours and what's yours is negotiable. Okay, we know that that's the way they operate. So that's not new. We dealt with that. You know, I'm friends, mentor, my friends and mentors from the Reagan administration has told me stories about this.

You just have to figure out a way to intimidate them back because they're not gonna budge by being nice so what he's saying is not okay it's like and and the idea that they want in with this idea that we're not going to give up anything it's like okay they're not in a position to negotiate uh they're negotiating they the ukrainians are negotiating for position of weakness because the russians know you know we're we're not budging you know we want to end this but we're not going to change and he basically he just admitted yeah we weren't actually going to negotiate I guess it's fair I guess it's fair to say I mean unless NATO uh introduces ground troops that's correct means World War III um the Russians will never surrender Crimea. I mean, it'll be like the United States

giving New Mexico back to Mexico, and the Russians will never leave eastern Ukraine. This is the problem with Ukraine and Russia. They've been linked together culturally for a long time, I mean, generations. And so during the Soviet Union, I mean, during the Soviet era, Judge, Ukraine was a key component of the Soviet Union. So when you start separating out things, like in a bad divorce, this is like a bad divorce, and everybody wants certain things, everybody wants Crimea. Well, I'm sorry, the Russians have physical presence in Crimea, that's not in the cards. So you need to give that up. And look, I'm on the side of the Ukrainians. I understand their suffering. With that said, to your point, Judge,

I said this for eight months now, there's no way the Ukrainians are going to win a ground battle, a conventional battle without NATO forces, some outside military force of a lot of troops and a lot of armor coming in on their side to win this. You mentioned earlier the three or four to one advantage you need to do offensive operations. You do. And the only people that would have that number of forces available is NATO. And NATO is not coming in. All right.

You have a soft spot in your heart for the suffering of the Ukrainians. I do for all people, Judge, and especially the Ukrainians. I think they're being victimized by our side. Here's Chief of Staff Yermak again with the editor-in-chief of the Wall Street Journal. This is very newsworthy in my view, what he's saying, comparing the Ukrainian fight to the American Revolutionary War. And again, I'll read the subtitles.

If you're fighting for what is rightfully yours, and I believe we are, similar to the Americans here, if we look at the history of the United States, same thing happened to you. You became a great country, a great nation precisely

because you always fought for your independence, for your freedom. And these values have always been your top priority. And today, we are in the 21st century and are fighting for the same thing. I don't know. I guess that would resonate beautifully with the Ukrainian people. And he obviously has an audience and it's in Washington, D.C., with which he wants that to resonate as well.

What did you think? So they're all over the map on their metaphors and using American history to try to take their advantage. Zelensky in his congressional speech, I think it was last year, called the Battle of Bakhmut, their version of the Battle of Yorktown. Well, clearly, not Yorktown, Saratoga. He mentioned Saratoga by name. So that analogy didn't work out either. This is not the Revolutionary War. This is more like the Civil War. This is more like North and South going at it about differences of policy. Now, I don't want to get too far afield here, but clearly our Civil War was based on a number of issues. United States Civil War was

based on a number of policy issues, which North Civil War was based on a number of policy issues which the North and South disagreed upon. I believe still to this day the Union and Lincoln was correct that the institution of slavery had to end and that was a necessary element to do it. I'm not comparing the Russians to us. I'm not comparing the Ukrainians to us. I'm saying that the fabric of the war is much more like the U.S. Civil War than it is the Revolutionary War. And so I don't agree with this premise. And how do I think this will play? I think anybody who actually studies history any time will recognize that there's no analogy there that's appropriate that he's saying. I think this is just more desperation on their

part, trying to get America more engaged. And it's just not going to happen at this point. I don't see it. Tony Schaefer, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you so much for joining us. Good to be here. Sure. If you like what you saw and heard, like, subscribe, tell a friend. We're cranking up those subscriptions. Our goal is 175,000 by Independence Day. More as we get it. Scott Ritter, 3.30 today, Eastern Time. Justin Napolitano for Judging Freedom. You want to feel safe in your vehicle. With access to your firearm, that's both secure and convenient.

The Headrest Safe keeps your firearm where you can access it and no one else can. It starts at theheadrestsafe.com. Thank you.