All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 21, 2024 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
34:28
LIVE! - Col. Douglas Macgregor :How the Ukraine War Will End
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Wednesday, August 21st, 2024.
We are back on YouTube.
More about what happened at the end of the show.
Colonel Douglas McGregor is here with us now on who's winning, who's losing, and why is NATO invading Russia.
But first this.
A divisive presidential election is upon us, and the winner is gold.
Let me tell you what I mean.
Since 2016, our national debt has grown a staggering 70%, and gold has increased by 60%.
Do you own gold?
I do.
I bought my gold in February 2023, and it has risen 33%.
You've heard me talk about Lear Capital, the company I trust.
Let me tell you why.
Recently, Kevin DeMeritt my friends.
Call 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com.
Protect your savings and retirement before it's too late.
800-511-4620, learjudgenap.com.
Remember, hope is not a strategy, but gold is.
Colonel, my dear friend, welcome back to the show.
Thank you for your patience during our time in the penalty box.
Colonel, what is the current status of the incursion by Ukrainian troops and others into the Kursk, I think I'm saying that the way Ray McGovern wants me to say it, region of Russia?
We have too many languages to master to do our jobs properly, don't we?
I think we can say with complete confidence that sadly, I guess if you're Ukrainian, all of the heavy weapon systems, Patriot missiles, radars, tanks, artillery, EW, all of the equipment that requires people to crew it is all being destroyed.
They've used a number of Iskander missiles, a missile that has a range out to about 310 miles, normally between 250 and 310, carrying a warhead that can be 1,000, 1,100, 1,200, 1,300 pounds, different kinds.
I know they've used some fuel air explosive as well as high explosive, and it's just devastated them.
They also have on either side of their flanks right now.
Very tough fighters, Chechens, Wagner, and also some soldiers from the Russian Volunteer Corps.
And they are cut off from retreating back into Ukraine.
I don't think very many of these people will survive.
How many are Americans and Brits?
Because, as you rightly point out, I think we can call this, tragically, a NATO invasion, even though they may well not be in Ukrainian or may be in Ukrainian uniform as opposed to their own.
And you also have Polish soldiers and officers.
So this conglomerate has really gotten into trouble.
They're not going to make it.
Colonel, the equipment that you described as being destroyed, this is American and Western-supplied equipment used for the incursion, brought into Russia by the Ukrainians and their Western comrades, destroyed by the Russian military.
Yes.
Probably the single most disappointing aspect of this whole business.
We started at the outset of this tragic war with promises that whatever we in the West did, it would be defensive against the Russians.
And I don't think there was ever any intention for U.S.-manufactured, British-manufactured, German-manufactured weapon systems to end up being used in offensive action against Russia.
But it's happened.
And from the Russian standpoint, they don't mince words.
They are very clear.
As far as they're concerned, this was not just a Ukrainian penetration into Russia.
It was a NATO penetration, even though it didn't get very far.
I would say maybe 20, 30 miles, perhaps 10 miles across all of these frantic claims of occupation of areas and taking ground.
That's all nonsense.
Are we safe in concluding, Colonel?
That this could not have happened but for the involvement of CIA, MI6, and the American Defense Department.
Oh, I think that's true, but I think you can make that argument from the very beginning, especially with the intelligence agencies.
They've been heavily engaged, and they're very proud of everything they've done, sadly.
So when Secretaries Blinken and Austin say they knew nothing about it, they're either being untruthful or somebody kept them in the dark.
Yeah, I think that's probably fair to say.
And it's not impossible that they were kept in the dark.
I know that that was done to President Trump.
The truth was concealed from him about the numbers and disposition of forces in Syria, in Iraq, and other places.
So it's not entirely surprising.
You know, I'm thinking about how all of this started, Colonel, and you and I have been through this many times.
the one and a half inch thick each page initialed agreement negotiated in Turkey between Russia and Ukraine, sabotaged by the United States and Great Britain in the person of then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, all of which with the promise to President Zelensky that Ukraine would join NATO.
With all of these problems, with all of...
NATO wants what Washington wants.
I think we need to get that straight.
Nothing happens in NATO that Washington does not initiate and does not approve.
If you take Washington out of the equation, I seriously doubt.
That very many NATO members would have wanted to have anything to do with this.
Also, I might add that Zelensky was promised a lot of things, not the least of which was that the entire scientific industrial power of the United States and its allies would be behind him, that he would have limitless quantities of equipment and ammunition, and that he would win because we insisted that Russia was backward and incapable.
Today, I received a communication from Europe.
And the communication came to me from the Balkans, principally from Croatia, but some other states as well.
People arguing against any further action and making the point that Article 5, this is this trigger for conflict in theory, really does not obligate anyone in NATO to join a war that they don't support.
And the argument that they made to me was, we don't support what's happening in Russia.
We really never did.
We're not part of it.
We're not sending anything over there.
So make sure Americans understand that if they initiate a war and they expect us, these are people of the Balkans to support them, it's not going to happen.
Well, who does General, I think I have his name right, and I should be able to pronounce his last name, Cavoli.
Cavoli, yeah.
Cavoli.
Who does General Cavoli command?
Is it just American troops or is it NATO troops?
In theory, he is the supreme commander of Europe.
He holds the same title that Eisenhower did at the end of the war when he was the initial commander of what was then not really NATO, but Allied Forces Europe.
Right.
And in theory, he commands all of those forces.
But the truth is that in the event of any emergency, any conflict or crisis, the various parliamentary bodies and their presidents have to give permission.
For the use of their forces, their capabilities, their resources.
And that's something one cannot assume.
Because again, the people that were contacting me earlier today from the Balkans, concerned about Article 5, pointed out that they had joined NATO because it was a defensive alliance.
And they thought that this would enhance their national security and defend them.
In truth, we all know that it's been a Trojan horse.
For offensive military action by the United States and its closest allies, primarily Britain, France, and to a lesser extent, Germany.
They were lied to by NATO, just as former Russian President Gorbachev was lied to by NATO and lied to by the United States.
Colonel, is Ukraine, I think I heard you say this, as wild as this sounds, I must ask you this, is Ukraine using chemical weapons in Russia?
Yeah, we've gotten reports that certainly there was some evidence for the use of chlorine in 155-millimeter shells.
I don't know if they came from the United States or Great Britain, but that's being reported.
Obviously, you can't know with absolute certainty unless you're on the ground and test the soil.
But at the time, I was very concerned about that because chlorine is a terrible poison.
It ruins the environment.
If that's true, I hope the Russians have it under control.
It's certainly a stupid, stupid idea.
Isn't it a war crime?
Well, that's a good question.
It depends on whether or not someone was harmed by it.
If no one was harmed, then I suppose, in theory, you don't have a crime.
But there are so many breaches of the Geneva Convention have characterized Ukrainian behavior that it's hard to say at this point.
What do your sources tell you about the probable presence of American persons on the ground in Russia as part of the incursion in courts, whether they're CIA, civilian contractors, soldiers of fortune, or U.S. military in somebody else's uniforms?
Well, we know that you've got Americans and British soldiers.
Or mercenaries, whatever you want to call them, and probably a number of Polish soldiers as well.
Are these people that were formerly in the armed forces and are now being hired and paid as mercenaries?
Are these people temporarily on loan?
You know, this is hard to tell.
I'm not someone who spent a lot of time in special operations.
And so a lot of things are possible when you move into the special operations realm with the intelligence agencies and everything's designed to conceal the truth.
But we know that there are at least 2,000 of the original 12,000 are people from the United States, Great Britain, and probably Poland, maybe more.
How many of them have been killed or captured?
I have no idea.
I hope that none of them are captured or killed, but it looks pretty grim right now.
Colonel, I don't want to put words in your mouth or split adjectives.
However, if the United States authorized it, if the United States orchestrated it, if the United States paid for it, paid the salaries of the soldiers of fortune, and if the United States supplied the equipment, I think the answer to all those ifs is yes, can you argue that the United States participated in an invasion of Russia?
Well, as you say, you're on the knife edge here of admitting You know, no one is fooled by any of this.
And we are playing a very dangerous game with Russia.
I sat yesterday with a woman who spent many, many years in Russia, and she was explaining to me the level of hostility and anger in the Russian population.
And the point she was making to me is that President Putin right now has enormous pressure on him from the Russian population to take decisive action.
There are patriotic songs.
People are writing essays and poems.
But there's this groundswell of support to essentially march west all the way to the Polish border and settle this.
The argument is there can be no more negotiation and whatever we agree to, The only solution is to end the life of this independent Ukrainian nation state.
I don't think that's what Putin wants to do.
In fact, I know he doesn't.
He would like to have a settlement of some kind.
But this is the attitude inside Russia.
So from the very beginning, remember, we were told there would be cracks in Russian society, that there was discontent inside Russian society, that people would rebel against the use of Russian troops in Ukraine.
None of that came to fruition.
For every one person who may have raised an objection, there were thousands that absolutely supported it because everyone knew it was in their national security interest to have a friendly state or at least a neutral state on Russia's western border.
Colonel, I'm going to play a clip from President Putin on Sunday evening in which he candidly says, you know, the West are the Ukrainian masters and they're fighting us and we know it.
And then I'm going to ask you after we play the clip as a follow up to what you just said, but first the clip.
Why is he being so patient?
Because he understands that if they confront us and we confront them militarily, that there is a potential for escalation to the nuclear level.
He's made this clear repeatedly that that's something he doesn't want and wants to avoid at all costs.
So I think that's really the underlying theme.
I think there's something else here that we need to mention.
Our media continues to misinform the public in the West.
And tells them that everyone is behind Zelensky.
The Ukrainians want to fight to the bitter end.
No one will give up.
Well, that's just not true.
The Ukrainian army is a shadow of its former self.
Large numbers of people are defecting.
If they can surrender and survive, they do.
If they can get out of the area and escape, they do.
No one that's overseas that's fled this place wants to come back and die pointlessly in this war.
So I think we're dealing with a puppet government, and Putin knows that.
And he's not interested, and has never been interested, in killing millionaires.
So I think that's part of it as well.
He wants to settle this thing.
He simply wants whatever remains of Ukraine to be a neutral state.
Will Putin decapitate Kiev, either destroy the buildings in which its leadership works or resides?
Well, he could certainly do that.
And a number of us have been rather surprised that he hasn't taken that action.
I think on the one hand, he'd like to have someone to talk to to end this thing.
So I'm sure that's part of his rationale for not having done it.
I think also he wants to spare Kiev.
You know, Kiev has a unique position in the history of Russia and the entire region.
It's the cradle of Russian Orthodox religion and culture.
It's the last place he wants to inflict damage on.
So you put those together, he's held back.
Now, is he currently considering a decisive strike once and for all and moving forces into the city?
I imagine he probably is.
But it's probably a last resort even now for him.
How long do you think this war is going to go on?
I mean, is this going to become another one?
In a little while, I'm going to play a clip that has to do with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the forever wars.
Do you think Ukraine will become another one of America's forever wars?
I'm sure that there are personalities in Washington who would welcome that.
Senator Graham.
I think you have to admit that you have these people that have no idea what they're talking about.
They don't understand the consequences for the Ukrainians.
They don't even understand the potential consequences for us.
And we seem to be ready to turn whatever is left of Ukraine and its homeland into a wasteland.
I don't think that's what anybody set out to fight for.
Why would you do that?
I'd like you to analyze a statement from President Lukashenko of Belarus.
This was also made Sunday evening.
Chris, cut number three.
For example, The use of nuclear weapons.
For sure, Ukraine would be very happy if Russia or Belarus used tactical nuclear weapons there.
They would be happy because we would hardly have any allies left.
No countries would ever sympathize.
And secondly, on nuclear weapons, the world has a negative view of these.
So the Ukrainians want to push this possibility.
They want to push Russia.
Who could defeat Russia?
Ukraine cannot do it.
Who can?
The West.
NATO.
We, myself and President Putin, think that NATO would then get the green light to invade Russia without hiding its intentions.
But for the statement that NATO could defeat Russia, I'm wondering if the whole attitude that he conveyed there was after he had a conversation with President Putin.
Oh, I'm sure he was influenced in some of his comments.
He's someone else that we have tried to demonize virtually from the first day that he took power.
But in his favor, he's tried very hard to promote peace.
Now, his bottom line argument is not wrong.
The Ukrainians have tried to push the Russians into extreme action.
And that's why I said before, I'm sure extreme action is, But it's not something he wants to take.
And I think the president knows that.
Lukashenko is absolutely aware that that's the case.
Does he have nuclear weapons?
Does Belarus, not a country perceived as a major player on the world scene, have nuclear weapons?
There are 8 million people living in Belarusia.
That's not very many.
Remember, at the outset of this war, there were, what, 40 million, we estimate, perhaps a little more, maybe a little less than Ukraine.
Belarus is very small in terms of population.
But with the agreement from Lukashenko, President Putin has pushed tactical nuclear weapons, Russian tactical nuclear weapons, forward in a position to defend Belarus.
Belarus has worried about attacks from Poland and Lithuania.
Again, you've got to go back and look at the history of the region, and at least half of what we call Bielorussia was part of Polish Lithuania for a very long time.
And so he's not unreasonably concerned about attacks against him.
Switching topics, Colonel, do you have any explanation for the extraordinary patience of the Iranian leadership?
Well, to their credit, the Iranian regime has not behaved impulsively.
I would argue that if anyone is emotional and impulsive in this setting, it's very much Mr. Netanyahu.
I think the Iranians are not interested in a war which could spell the destruction and the end of Israel as well as potentially for themselves if the Israelis strike them with nuclear weapons.
I think they want to give peace a chance even though the probability of a settlement and a ceasefire in Gaza is quite frankly remote.
I think they're going to hold off for that reason.
I also think that there are enormous numbers of Russian technicians and soldiers on the ground in Iran Helping to set up an integrated air and missile defense structure and also to put in place electronic warfare equipment, missiles, other capabilities that will make Iran certainly much more secure and much more formidable as an opponent because they have to assume that if they fight with the Israelis that they will end up at war with us.
And obviously they have a great deal of respect for what we can do to them with air and naval power.
Colonel, notwithstanding what we hear from Secretary Blinken and as recently as this past weekend, President Biden, isn't it reasonable to conclude that there will never be a negotiated ceasefire while Prime Minister Netanyahu is in office?
He just won't let it happen for reasons that we understand, nearly all of which are personal to his own.
Salvation, or I shouldn't say salvation, his own tenure in office.
Well, you know, that may be, Judge.
I can't give you an ironclad response that says there will never be something like a compromise of some sort.
I can't.
And I'm reluctant to do so because I would like to see something which is better than what we have now, which is this unending stalemate.
They could only be broken through some sort of mutual suicide.
So I'm hopeful that, yeah, we could find a way out of this morass.
But admittedly, it's hard to imagine.
You know, you cannot do what the Israelis have done in Gaza.
And every report I see tells me that the reports of the dead are gross underestimates.
And of course, if you say that, the Israelis attack you and say, oh, well, the Arabs, they lie about everything.
The problem is that the Israelis have told the people in the region, That they are animals.
That they are not human.
They are subhuman.
That they deserve to be exterminated.
You tell that to your neighbors.
What do you expect will happen?
Can you reasonably expect to have a compromise at any time in the future?
The reason I suggest to you that Prime Minister Netanyahu will never agree to a ceasefire is because I think it is reasonable to conclude it will bring about the collapse of his government in large measure.
Because of this man leading a march of several thousand Zionists into the Temple Mount last week.
Cut number six.
We are at the Temple Mount on Tisha B 'Av.
Today we commemorate the destruction of the Temple, but we must also honestly acknowledge that there is significant progress here regarding the governance and sovereignty.
The sight of Jews praying, as I said, Our policy is to permit prayer.
But I'll say something else.
We must win this war.
We must win.
Not go to summits in Doha or in Cairo.
But defeat them.
Bring them to their knees.
That's the message.
We can defeat Hamas.
Bring it to its knees.
Isn't his and his colleague, Finance Minister Smotrich's threat to leave the government sufficient to prevent, if a ceasefire is agreed to, sufficient to prevent Prime Minister Netanyahu from accepting whatever is on the table?
So if he says, well, we agree with what's on the table, he knows it's something that Hamas won't accept.
And if Hamas does accept something, he's going to up the ante.
It's kind of obvious what's happening, isn't it?
I think so.
I think we have to understand something that as unreasonable as that sounds, They see this as an all-or-nothing proposition.
And they're effectively sending the message that we refuse to live in a region with people that we cannot control.
And that's the bottom line.
If you cannot control the Amalek, the people that live around you that you've dismissed as subhuman, then the only alternative is to kill them in large numbers and drive them out, or for you to pack up your things and leave.
And they are not going to leave, not at this point.
I think it's a terrible situation for Israel to be in, you know, but they've put themselves into this position, and they are I do want to play this little very interesting clip.
This is in honor of somebody who died yesterday, who is a great anti-war activist, and you'll know who it is in a minute.
And he's having an argument with the biggest loudmouth on television.
You can probably figure out already who that is.
This is back around 1913, about the time General Petraeus was saying, we can win the war with a surge.
Watch this, Colonel.
We say that her positions are radical, and they are radical.
Let me tell you what's radical.
What's radical is to send more Americans to die in this war, which is a monumental blunder by a president who's swaggered us into it, with, by the way, the at least tacit approval of the Democratic Party.
There's a lot of sin to go around here.
What's radical for you?
Do you want to send more people to this war?
Is that your position?
If we cut and run out of there like you want to do, we would be putting every American in a thousand times more jeopardy than they're in now.
We're going to cut and run anyway, Bill.
Well, that's your opinion.
That's my opinion.
American military leaders have said we're going to draw down beginning next year.
The difference is we draw down and cut pictures.
Now listen, listen.
You wouldn't send your children to this war, Bill.
My nephew just enlisted in the army.
You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Very good.
Very good.
Congratulations.
You ought to just walk away.
How many more young men and women?
Are you going to send to have their arms and legs blown off so that you can be tough and point at people in a kind of cowardly way?
And they knew that, first of all, only Congress can declare war.
Why is that unimportant to you, Billy?
Why can't you become the patriot that your loud voice proclaims to be and stand behind the Constitution and insist that we never go to war again without...
Poorly planned and poorly executed, but Bill O 'Reilly wants to send more kids to fight and die.
We've already had almost 2,000.
Just let me have the last word.
In the last year, two things have doubled.
The number of dead American troops in Iraq have doubled, from over 1,000 to almost 2,000.
You know what else doubled, Billy?
The price of Halliburton stock.
Oof.
After that, which is a montage of an interview that went on for about a half an hour, I was in the green room.
He came out and he looked at me and we embraced each other.
And then I was on the show and I said, Bill, he ate your lunch and O 'Reilly was just furious at me.
The statement, cut and run, is always interesting.
Yeah.
Because I was asked, and I may have well been interviewed by you at the time, somebody said, do you just want to walk out of Afghanistan?
I said, no, I want to run out.
Right.
And what they don't understand is that Phil was correct.
We are preeminently a maritime and air power.
We are only temporarily on the ground wherever we go on the Eurasian landmass.
It doesn't matter where you go.
It's a temporary phenomenon.
We need to make that very clear.
And this notion of staying in order to change people and cultures and a way of life, to introduce political institutions that have no foundation in the area, this is all nonsense.
And then the least thoughtful among us, the least well-educated about these matters, stand up and say, we're Americans.
We don't cut and run.
We fight to the end.
Yeah, let's fight to the end, but not in places that are of marginal at best interest to us.
Let's not brutalize and murder people because they don't necessarily want to live in the liberal democratic paradise that we're trying to export at gunpoint.
You know, it's so disappointing because, frankly, Judge, you and I know this man O 'Reilly has never changed.
He's part of the Bombs Away Club.
You know, anybody who wants to bomb anybody anywhere is a patriot, and anybody who objects is a loser.
Gutless.
Not a patriot.
It's a lot of crap.
As everybody knows, Phil Donahue passed away, I think, yesterday or the day before, and Chris put that together and said, I have a surprise for you, and it moved me deeply.
Colonel, thank you very much.
Thank you for your time with us.
Thank you for your profound and deep analysis.
We'll look forward to seeing you again next week.
All the best.
Thanks, George.
Of course.
Coming up later today at 3 o 'clock Eastern, Phil Giraldi talking about why is the United States always looking for enemies?
Now, where have we been for the past week?
Well, the folks that run YouTube decided that a statement that was made
It had to do with the nearly universal recognition of the fact that there is a group in the Ukrainian military that is alleged to be the descendants of Nazis and to embrace.
The Nazi ideology.
And their computer said, well, that was hate speech two months ago, so you're off the air for seven days.
We appealed it and we lost.
We appealed it again and we lost.
How do I feel?
Well, I don't feel good about it because this statement about this group in the military was articulated by the New York Times, CNN, and MSNBC.
It wasn't anything novel or unsupported.
But the libertarian in me respects YouTube.
It is a private entity.
It is not the government.
It is not regulated by the First Amendment.
They can kick me off if they don't like the color of my shirt or the color of my hair today compared to its color two weeks ago.
They can make all those decisions that the government can't.
I'm happy to be back.
If you want to watch this very clip, which they took down.
Go to JudgeKnapp.com.
You'll see it there.
In fact, go to JudgeKnapp.
Sign up at JudgeKnapp, because if this happens again, that's where we'll be.
We'll be there and at a place that made us feel very comfortable in the past week.
You know it.
It's Rumble.
But this is still our principal place.
I'm thrilled to be back.
I'm happy you're with us.
We'll see you with Phil Giraldi at 3 o 'clock.
▲
Export Selection