Judging Freedom - Zelenskyy and Propaganda w/Tony Shaffer fmr DoD

Episode Date: September 20, 2023

Zelenskyy and Propaganda w/Tony Shaffer fmr DoDSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, September 20th, 2023. Lieutenant Colonel Tony Schaefer joins us now. Tony, always a pleasure. I was going to be here, Judge. Thank you. Of course. I guess we shouldn't have been surprised at President Zelensky at the UN yesterday saying Russia is trying to take on the world, and President Biden at the UN blaming Russia as the world's demon. It was just a little frightening to hear them say it. Isn't the domino theory, the idea that if Russia is not forced out of Ukraine, it will soon take over Poland, isn't that of no respect anymore amongst diplomats and military leaders? Well, let me put it in context. Is Russia taking on the world? Yes. And the reason they're taking on the world is because there's been violations of the Budapest Accord. I was just texting with

someone on the Budapest Accord. The Budapest Accord essentially back in, I think it was 94, 95, established the framework for the Ukrainian independence, for them to be independent. And one of the things was the territorial integrity of Ukraine would be recognized as long as, and they would give up their nuclear weapons back to Russia with the agreement that Russia would let them stand. But the other part of that agreement, Judge, and that's why the Russians are upset, and we need to accept this whether we like it or not, is that the agreement was NATO would not expand eastward, and NATO has expanded eastward. So Zelensky is taking out of context the issues regarding Russia. Is Russia taking on the world? Yes, because they feel that there's been impositions on the agreement against them. Do I believe Russia is going to act aggressively to pursue expanded combat operations in Europe?

No. While I do believe they could do great damage to NATO in a conflict, but my belief is that there would be no good coming from any continued or expanded combat. I think the Russians know that. So is Russia taking on the world? Yes. Based on the grievances they have, are they going to take on the world the way Zelensky's proposing it? No, I don't see that, nor is there any indications of that. Your views are consistent with almost everyone that comes on this show. Colonel Greger, Scott Ritter, Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern, Matt Ho are all of the same view. Matt's a great guy. I like Matt. Thank you. He is a great guy.

Putin has no interest whatsoever in fighting a war against NATO and no interest whatsoever in moving westward, even though NATO has a great interest in moving eastward. I mean, they have. They have said just last weekend, the reason this war came about is because of the expansion of NATO. And the reason for the expansion of NATO is the demands of the United States. That stuff is really not to be disputed. Those are facts, no? Well, I've fought with NATO. I've actually, on my uniform, have a NATO service medal. And they've served globally in support of the war on terror.

They were in Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, NATO ISAF took over the war. I would argue maybe that's one of the reasons we lost, just saying, since we did not win that war. They took over in 2004 when I was there. And, you know, NATO was never designed, Judge, to be an expeditionary or expansionist organization. It's supposed to be defensive in nature. If you go back and look at the charter, it was designed to be what it was during the Cold War. An interlocutor of European nations who never get along for purposes of trying to have a format for their collective defense. Defense, not offense.

And the idea of expanding eastward. While I understand some of the states, Lithuania and some of those states wanting to be part of and protected by NATO. I get it. It is what it is. It happened for us to continue to ignore what the Russians, the Russians, not just Putin. Putin is the representative of the Russian culture and the Russian beliefs. That's why he's doing very well in the polls. And the Russians have been willing as a people to take on hardships regarding this war, because they do feel that their territorial integrity and their need to have buffer zones is something that's being violated. It is what it is. And again, I'm not I'm not pro-Russian. I'm not pro-Ukrainian. I'm not pro-Putin. I'm not pro-Zelensky. I'm just stating facts as what they are, as best I understand.

Do you remember the famous leaked memo? This is Bill Burns when he was the U.S. ambassador to Russia. He's now the director of the CIA. He's the U.S. ambassador to Russia. Condoleezza Rice is George W. Bush's national security advisor. Burns' memo says 99% of Russians, not just Putin, it's not just the elites, fear NATO moving eastward. You need to know that. Now, I guess they didn't want it leaked, but it's out there. And obviously, Bill Burns is not mouthing the same thing today. But it is a fact that Russian fear of NATO aggression is across the board. It's not just Putin. Russia's border with NATO today is 1,400 miles long. The United States border with Mexico is 1,900 miles long. How would we feel if Mexico entered into a treaty with China

and China put offensive weaponry along that border? It would be the same reaction. Well, I agree with your judgment. And let me walk through this because this is something instructive, I think, for the audience to understand. Mongolia is 1237. Ottoman Empire, 1570. Sweden, 1708. And they didn't get the meatballs out of it, by the way. French, the French invaded 1812. Japan, 1905. U.S. intervention, we helped an intervention in Russia, 1918. And Germany, 1941. These are all incursions, invasions, or battles which the Russians had to undertake to defend their territory. This is history. This isn't Tony Schaefer having a strong opinion. This is simply restating facts as what they are. And Burns, I think, reflects that through his

commentary. Again, this should not be an emotional issue, but it is for those neocons and those on the left who are now cheerleading the idea of continuing this war when they're not willing to understand the grievances which the Russians have. And again, I'm not pro-Russian. I'm simply stating the perspective of Russia, which is enabling them to continue to fight. Here's the neocon in chief yesterday at the United Nations, President Biden. I mean, he really starts out saying Ukraine wants a diplomatic solution. Well, you got to listen to the whole thing. Yeah. Russia wanted a diplomatic solution before the first shot was fired, and Ukraine said no. But listen to what Joe Biden said, demonizing Russia, and then we'll talk about it.

Joe Biden We strongly support Ukraine in its efforts to bring about diplomatic resolution that delivers just and lasting peace. But Russia alone, Russia alone bears responsibility for this war. Russia alone has the power to end this war immediately. And it's Russia alone that stands in the way of peace, because Russia's price for peace is Ukraine's capitulation, Ukraine's territory, and Ukraine's children. Russia believes that the world will grow weary and allow it to brutalize Ukraine without consequence. But I ask you this. If we abandon the core principles of the United States to appease an aggressor,

can any member state in this body feel confident that they are protected? If we allow Ukraine to be carved up, is the independence of any nation secure? I'd respectfully suggest the answer is no. We have to stand up to this naked aggression today and deter other would-be aggressors tomorrow. That's why the United States, together with our allies and partners around the world, will continue to stand with the brave people of Ukraine as they defend their sovereignty

and territorial integrity and their freedom. Paul Jay There's so much to unpack there, Tony. I guess we'll start with Ukraine wants a diplomatic solution. Russia offered a diplomatic solution before the first shot was fired. Russia could stop the war tomorrow. He, Joe Biden, could stop the war tomorrow with a phone call. In fact, he could have walked down from the podium and whispered it to Zelensky's ear, that's it, stop, and it would have ended as soon as Zelensky could have called home.

All right. No, I think a ceasefire would have been the logical thing to seek at this point to try. Even if you don't necessarily want to have territorial concessions, you need to stop the fighting and bloodshed because the Ukraine is losing far more. Something like seven to one based on the numbers, I believe, to be accurate combat losses and even more during their offensive. And it's interesting just the demeanor of those people in the audience. Everybody's looking down, checking their eBay bidding, you know, did I get that? Did I bid enough on that? And then Zelensky looks like he's having a hard time keeping that breakfast burrito down. Nobody cares what Joe Biden's saying. So it's interesting that everybody listens to this,

and yet nobody pays attention, because what I hear Biden saying is rhetoric that has no basis in fact. If he wanted to make the case that the Russians were aggressors, he needs to put in context why the Russians felt the need to expand their effort from diplomatic to military. And this is, look, I think Trump would actually state the facts as they are. It's like, look, things were out of hand. These are the things which both sides need to handle. We need to mediate, not aggravate one or the other side. And we're not doing that. We should be the peacemaker here, not the cheerleader. And to your point- You mentioned Trump. President Zelensky mentioned him yesterday because Trump has been saying, very Trumpian, because we don't know what

he means by this, he could end the war in 24 hours. And of course, President Zelensky is saying, call me up and tell me how we can end the war in 24 hours. Joe Biden could end the war in 24 hours as well, but Zelensky wouldn't be happy with it. Right. So who knows what Trump means? He has the gift of making statements. He's got great instincts. He just, his execution sometimes is lacking. So there you go.

Now you talk about making misstatements. Here's General Miley yesterday. Milley. Milley, thank you. He's claiming Ukraine has actually penetrated several layers of Russian defenses. Generally speaking, the Ukrainians have penetrated several layers of this defense. It is not 100 percent penetrated yet, but they've penetrated several of the layers. And they're going very slow, preserving their combat power, and very deliberately through this defensive belt that stretches the entire length and breadth of Russian-occupied

Ukraine. So for the critics that are out there, I would say that there's plenty of fighting weather left. There's plenty of combat power remaining. And the Ukrainians have absolutely no intent to stop. Does he know what he's talking about? Is there any evidence to support their three levels of defenses, layers of defenses? Is there any evidence whatsoever to support they've even approached the first, much less breached the first two?

You need to listen to the words he chooses, the opening phrase of generally. Generally means, well, generally, you know, generally I walked down to the store and generally I kind of hung out. Generally they penetrated. Really, it's like, Judge, they probably have had reconnaissance elements who made it past the lines. But what he's failing to say is sustainable gains that have been acquired based on combat operations. He can't say that because it's not it's not true. Again, if he were being if he were if this was Norman Schwarzkopf, he would use clear and concise language to delineate fact from fiction and establish an understanding of what has been gained militarily. Milley's not doing that. Milley is being essentially a politician in uniform and using very soft, very inaccurate messaging and language for purposes of trying to say, oh, they're doing OK.

And this other thing about, you know, oh, there's plenty of combat power left. I don't believe there is. I think they're, again, scraping the bottom of the barrel of manpower. They've not been successful in orchestrating effective use of the Leopard and Challenger tanks to any great effect. They've lost a lot of Bradleys. We've had to replace a bunch of those. And most importantly, this whole plenty of time left, again, we're going to see within about three weeks, less than three weeks, I think sometime in early October, the rain's coming in, and it's going to be like we saw Burning Man with tanks and no hot chicks,

and it's just not going to be good for them. So I'm just telling you, that's what's coming. Here's the general again. Tell me if he's being disingenuous again here. Same speech, same press conference. Yeah. Talking about the American end goal in Ukraine. As President Biden, Secretary Austin has said many, many times over, we, the United States, will continue to provide support to Ukraine for as long as it takes. The end goal remains crystal clear.

Support Ukraine until Putin's unwarranted, illegal and ruinous war of choice comes to an end. Does he not understand the Russian mentality? He must. He's the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If he doesn't, he shouldn't. I know he's leaving the job in two weeks or next week. So let me, look, I know Mark. I was his guy on the transition team during the Trump transition, you know, he and Joe Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I was working as kind of the coordinator between Mark and Joe Dunford and Mike Flynn.

And I spoke with Milley extensively. He lectured me on his beliefs regarding the culture and order that was established after World War II. He kind of laid out his philosophy to me. He's not a dumb man. He told me to my face his concerns about China and laid out the factual path forward. So what he's saying is political. He's a smarter man than this. So everything he just said in that last segment, that part two, he knows it. First off, he's not stating achievable goals. Those goals he has stated are not achievable, period. They're just not going to happen. He knows it, and yet he's saying it anyway. He essentially has abandoned his primary goal of giving the best possible military advice to the commander-in-chief. That's what the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is supposed to do, the senior military advisor to the president. And so the derivative comments he makes that relate to aspirations which are political, not practical, not military. So I just,

I have no, I have no regard for what he says because it's political, not military. It's just not. We all know that the CIA notoriously spins intel that are delivered to the president so as to reinforce the president's preconceived notions. Does the military do the same when Joe Biden and the general are alone, when Donald Trump and this same general were alone? Was it the same political claptrap or was it what he really understands the military situation to be? It comes down to the general. I need to be careful here because I know a little bit about how things were done in certain times. I know certain generals who are very blunt and very direct about their presentation of information. And I know Trump appreciated

those generals. I'll leave it at that. I know. And the generals who I'm speaking about know who they are. I don't want to get them in trouble because they may want to come back someday. And Trump actually appreciated it. You know this. A, you know trends and how it generally works. And B, you know this general has got two more weeks or 10 more days in office. 10 days. Yeah, well, look, Milley chose to act politically. He chose under Trump. He took a side.

Look, during the walk to the church, if he works for the president, the president says, walk with me to a church during a protest. So what? It's not his right to then start adding commentary to that. He just basically says, you know, I work for the man. I walk with him. That should not be taken politically. I am his senior military advisor, period. Instead, he chose to go out there and make all these comments about how generals should behave regarding the democracy. Well, first off, we don't have a democracy. We're a republic. Even Google, if you Google it, even Google gets it right, for goodness sake.

Judge, we have a republic. You know, so it's just it's appalling to me that we've seen a general who swore an oath to the Constitution, the American people acting politically up to the bitter end. And 10 days, you know, until Milley's gone. I look forward to the day that he's modeling high heels and skirts for some modeling agency since he seems to want to do that here's um president zielinski yesterday at the un i want you to listen to the last two words now he uses which as i hear it is a little terrifying it's dirty bombs but he says a lot before that. Here we go. Many times the world has witnessed Russia using energy as a weapon. Kremlin weaponized oil and gas to weaken the leaders of other countries when they came to the Red Square. And now, now this threat is even greater. Russia is weaponizing nuclear energy. Not only it is spreading its unreliable nuclear power plant construction technologies,

but it is also turning other countries' power plants into real dirty bombs. What is he talking about, turning other countries' power plants into real dirty bombs? I mean, it's like stream of consciousness after dropping LSD. I have no idea, but I'll tell you, I'll try to put it in context. He's saying that the basic design of nuclear reactors is dangerous. Well, Chernobyl, you know,

they do have Chernobyl in their country. Okay, you know, those were not good reactors. And I think the Russians have learned since then not to design them that way. So Russia is proliferating, by the way, nuclear power plants to third world nations. Something that I've said we should be concerned about because the fizzle material that they use in those plants could be weaponized. I get that. But that's not what Zelensky is saying.

He's saying the basic design is flawed. And he's implying that any time you have a nuclear power plant the Russians make, you have a dirty bomb, which is like, no. This is like, again, a stream of consciousness. What he's saying is like, you know, if I were there, I would be visibly rolling my eyes when he's saying this. What is a dirty bomb, Tony? A dirty bomb is a terror weapon that has been proposed but never deployed to date that I'm aware of. Basically, it's taking radiological material, either physical material from a nuclear reactor, nuclear material from x-rays in hospitals, putting it all together,

putting it around a conventional explosive and blowing up that explosive, thereby fanning out, putting out into the atmosphere all sorts of radioactive material. It would contaminate a large amount of space over a very short period and theoretically making that space unusable unless you have to wear a garb and things like that. Have the Russians ever done this? No, not once. I don't even know of any program. Look, I've studied the Russians a long time.

I've never seen a single program that the Russians had where they proposed this as a military or weaponized concept that they would use. I have no idea what he's talking about. Zero. I mean, it's just never been proposed in any military circle or intelligence report I've ever read, ever. Last question. How do you see the war progressing from here? How much longer? I see it progressing badly. It's just not going anywhere. The idea that we're going to cough up another $28 billion. Let's put this in perspective. Judge, we just crossed the $3 trillion deficit line within, I think, the last two days. $3 trillion. I don't think people understand how much money that is. $3 trillion in what? In Joe Biden's presidency or in 2023? No, I'm sorry. I misspoke. $33 trillion. You're talking about total federal

government. $33 trillion. We just crossed that. So what's another $28 billion? But what we need to put in perspective, there's no linkage between appropriation of dollars, that is to say taxation, taxes on you and me, and the expenditure process. So in essence, all the taxes we pay are simply harassment that just limits our ability to use our money as we see fit. I think it's unconstitutional. But because there's no, the federal Leviathan is spending incessantly without regard to consequences. Agreed, consequences agreed agreed agreed and Chuck Schumer and Kevin McCarthy are locked step on the same page on this they want to give old Joe the 28 billion how much longer can the conflagration keep going on in Ukraine in your view it it could

go on a long time it's a steady stream of misery because Ukraine is, like Milley said, they're just going to keep fighting no matter what. And we're going to keep funding them no matter what, unless Congress somehow stops in. Because I don't think the Europeans have a stomach to continue it. I think that's going to wane over the next few months. But the Russians have decided on an effective strategy of attrition. The attrition that the Russians, that is basically hanging back, having defense posture and let the Ukrainians keep coming into them is working just fine. So the Russians can sit there in their defensive posture a long time and let the Russians expand uselessly their military power. So this could go on another six months. Easy.

Wow. Tony Schaefer, thank you very much, my dear friend. Thank you. Much appreciated. There you have it. A great analysis from Tony Schaefer. I'm just checking my iPhone here. I'm pretty sure Scott Ritter is at 3.30 today. Yes, Scott Ritter, 3.30 Eastern today. More analysis that you don't get anywhere else.

Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.