All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 24, 2024 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
25:00
LtCOL. Tony Shaffer : Does Russia Need No. Korea?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Thursday, October 24th, 2024.
Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Schaefer joins us now.
Tony, a pleasure, my dear friend.
Good morning, Judge.
Thank you.
Good morning to you.
Thank you.
I do want to talk to you at some length on whether Russia needs or even wants troops from North Korea, which is the hot news of the past 36 hours in Ukraine.
But before we get there, I'd like your views on some of the recent events in the Middle East.
The killing of Senwar.
I hope benefits from this, Tony.
Some have said Prime Minister Netanyahu has the right to crow because he's decapitating the leadership of his enemies.
Others have said killing Senwar turns him into a permanent martyr and increases the ardor and enthusiasm of Senwar.
The Japanese, more than the Germans, had a specific racial view of the world.
The Germans did too, but the Japanese had a very specific view.
Very much in believing that they were God's chosen people to rule the world eventually.
Japanese, that is.
This is 1940, you know, really from the 30s to 45 when they were defeated, the Empire of Japan.
And what it took to defeat Japan was a complete beatdown.
It took a...
I'm not saying we should use the atomic bomb here.
I'm not making that comparison.
What I'm saying is the Japanese people had to feel completely defeated and understand that they had to go a different direction.
That's what I think they're going for with Senua, in that they've gone after leader after leader, both Hezbollah and Hamas.
And at this point, they're trying to essentially take...
That's what they're trying to do.
Now, will it work?
I don't know.
But I think that's the theory.
The theory is, let's do everything we can to demoralize and crush the resistance.
Do you give any credence to the argument that he's now a super martyr whose death will be used for recruitment purposes?
No.
And that's why you've seen so much of the B-roll of his final moments.
It's hard to make someone into a martyr when he kind of looks as human and frail as Sinoa did at the end.
And you've probably seen, I monitor the social media, the Israelis put out everything.
There's the initial attack, there's the tanks shooting the round, there's Those are all meant to diminish his potential of being a martyr.
That's why they did that, Judge, is that basically, like, he's just another man, and he died like a terrorist, the terrorist he was.
He died fighting.
He didn't die hiding himself.
Yeah, well, maybe.
I know that their side of trying to say that, it's like, oh, yeah.
I don't think it's going to hold.
Okay.
All right.
I got it.
I got it.
And I appreciate your thoughts on it.
Why does Israel need THAADs?
Does the Iron Dome not adequately protect them from Iranian missiles?
Well, yes and no.
So they have the Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 missiles of the Iron Dome.
I think the Arrow 3 are the equivalent of THAAD.
And these things are pricey, Judge.
I mean, these things are super expensive.
Yes.
And as much as I think people have enjoyed seeing the state of technology, two lessons have come out of this.
First, we go to war.
We're going to expend everything we have in about two weeks.
And then what are we going to start doing?
Throwing spears and rocks?
Because that's what's going to happen.
You're going to go through these things like we've seen in Ukraine and Israel.
Let me stop you and say we go to war.
Are you talking about the U.S.?
Are you talking about Israel?
I'm talking about the world.
The technology is so expensive now.
Both sides would expend this stuff rapidly and then be back to analog.
Does the Iron Dome work?
Are THAADs efficient?
Are they a waste of money?
Why did we send two of them there, and why do they each have 100 American troops with them?
Well, let me answer the technical problem and then get to the troops.
The technical issue is the THAAD does do.
It's a theater.
It's THAAD.
T stands for theater.
That means it has a wide area range.
And it's designed to knock down high-altitude ballistic missiles.
I think, I can't confirm it, I think it can do a pretty good job against hypersonic missiles too, just saying.
So that's why it was deployed.
It can both augment the Aero-3, which is the long-range missile of the Iron Dome system, as well as do some things that the Aero-3 can't do, which may be hypersonics.
And Russia has deployed hypersonics, the Eskendron, I think I'm pronouncing it correctly.
Eskenderon, hypersonic missiles.
So I think there's fear that hypersonics are going to be used more often, and I think that's why the THAAD is deployed there.
Why do we have troops there?
This is a Hail Mary by the Biden administration.
They've been seen, the Biden administration has been seen as anti-Israeli.
And the leaks, Robert Malley, their lead on Iran several years ago is being investigated for leaking to Iran, leaking information.
You have the Pentagon leak of information relating to operational planning in support of the Israelis.
So all these things are happening with the Biden administration being blamed of not being strong enough.
So this is a twofer.
They're deploying a weapons system which should be able to help out.
That is to say, we've already engaged.
We had the Buckley and the Cole engage against Iran.
Knocking down missiles in the last attack a couple weeks ago.
So we've already done it.
We've engaged.
The idea is putting American troops on Israeli soil will show that we're pro-Israeli.
That's what they're doing.
Did I miss something, Tony, or did Congress authorize troops?
I said this on the network, Judge, on Newsmax.
Like, yeah, where's the discussion?
To actually deploy troops to a combat zone where you will become a combatant and you have the potential for essentially not only defending an ally.
I don't believe we have any treaties which require us to deploy troops to support the Israelis.
I don't think we have that.
I may be wrong, but I don't think we do.
To actually move troops to the ground, on the ground, in Israel, in a configuration where they are there to fight.
That's what, you know.
Yes, that is defensive.
I get it, but it is a fight.
You're deploying army guns.
We wear uniforms.
What are we going to do when some of them come home in body bags?
Let me ask you this, Tony.
You are very familiar with this from your own experience there when you wore a uniform.
Are these troops tripwire?
Yes.
That was my next point, yes.
Now, you know, Walter Jones, you and I, if Walter was still alive, we'd be screaming about this publicly.
You and I are talking about it as best we can, but yes.
They're a tripwire.
And again, if you're going to put troops in harm's way as a tripwire, you should probably be asking Congress and the American people if that's what they want.
And, you know, God rest Walter.
would say they'd get the vote and they'd probably be approved anyway, but we should at least have the discussion.
And there's been no discussion about the level of danger these troops are in because inevitably, if something gets through, The Iranians, that is.
If they have it, I'm not saying they do.
Man, oh man, we're at war with Iran instantly.
And I'm not sure if that's the right thing for us to be able to do without having a discussion first here.
Have the Israelis defeated Hamas?
They're close.
I think given the situation, there's, I think, evidence that I think that there's some effort there to get the Palestinians, not just Hamas, to kind of say, hey, it's time that we stop this.
And so I think they are close to being in the position where they're just going to stop fighting.
I think that's what the Israelis are going for.
What is the significance in your view?
Of the leak on Telegram of the two documents.
I mean, it did show a couple of things.
It showed that, this is no surprise, American intel spies on Israelis.
There's also casual mention, first time I've seen this in an official government document, even though it's top secret, of the Israeli nuclear program.
Do you think this was a deception?
In order to give the Iranians a false sense of security?
Or this was a real serious leak of real plans that the Israelis had for an attack?
No, I think this is real.
And come on, Judge.
Of course, they spy on everybody.
They don't admit it, but they do.
And especially in this situation where the Biden administration has been spying on the Israelis because the Israelis don't trust us.
There's been multiple leaks, so that's why I think they took Secondly, I've talked here and some other programs about the existence of the Israeli nuclear program.
You're not fooling anybody to deny its existence.
And I even said what the Iranians were shooting at regarding their ballistic missile strike.
They were shooting at, and I do believe this, the Iranians were shooting at the Israeli nuclear bunkers.
But the American acknowledgement of the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons triggers a whole panoply of federal laws that prohibit us from providing a nickel in aid to Israel, much less $20 billion.
Do you think it's going to trigger anything, Judge?
Well, no, if the law were enforced as written and as intended, it should, but it won't because of the iron grip that the Israeli donor class, the American donors, have on the members of Congress.
So that's why they did it.
That's why whoever leaked this leaked it, to have the very conversation we're having right now.
Whoever leaked it knows exactly what you said to be true, that there's a very clear link between...
I'm not here to judge that.
I'm saying that's what this leak was meant to disrupt.
That's why it was leaked the way it was.
And this was also operational information regarding planning.
He's been saying the Pentagon leaked it.
The Pentagon did leak it, from what I can tell.
And it was leaked for two things.
The Pentagon leaked it.
Was this an official leak by somebody in the government trying to change government policy?
Or was this a renegade, an Edward Snowden type?
I think it's someone who's a political appointee.
And they did it with the knowledge of those who knew it would have an effect.
I think this person thought they could do it and get away with it.
That's why it was done.
And I think it was done to have the disruption and degrade our ability to respond.
Because this ultimately puts us back on our heels.
It's not just about Israel.
So if we decide to go to war, not saying we should, not judging it, just saying if we go to war with Iran.
The fact this information is out there and our level of knowledge and our level of focus, our focus is.
What kind of an Israeli assault on Iran do you expect?
I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Do you expect the Israelis to engage in a major assault on Iran?
Oh, I do.
I just don't think it's going to be They don't.
And really, Iran doesn't either.
So this is going to have to be done in such a way that new technology will be used.
I think that's what they're going to do.
I think you're going to see some sophisticated hits using information operations, much like we saw with the pager operation with all that.
I think there's more things that the Israelis have up their sleeves regarding Iran.
And then secondly, I think you're going to see more high-tech missile and other remote.
Technology such as drones.
So I think the Israelis have a base somewhere close to Iran.
I don't want to say where it is.
I'll get in trouble because I'm even speculating, but I think they've got a base close in.
I think they can do a lot more with drones than they've let on.
And I think they're getting ready to terrorize the leadership of the mullahs through some of the things they're going to do.
All right.
Switching gears to another area of your wheelhouse.
There's all these.
Inconsistent reports about North Korean troops in Russia from, yeah, they're training in the far east of Russia and they've been doing that for years to there are 10,000 to 12,000 troops on the ground in an area that Ukraine says is Ukraine and they're fighting alongside the Russians and there are various reports of levels of activity between those two extremes.
What is your understanding of the presence or non-presence or use or non-use of North Korean troops in Russia?
So, I think, Judge, the number I'm comfortable with is they've got about 3,000 combat troops.
Eh, it's nothing.
I mean, if they had deployed 30,000 combat troops, well, that's, you know, an army-sized deployment.
Then you've got some real firepower.
And the Chuche spirit, the North Korean spirit of militarism, they have a very, very large standing army.
I mean, it's like over a million men because it's facing off against South Korea.
So these troops are pretty well trained.
With that said, it's not a game changer.
What this is about, it's all essentially flexing.
This is Vladimir Putin flexing.
It's showing that he can be a...
Right now, at the time we're speaking and taping this, they're having the BRICS meeting in Russia.
He's showing his economic and diplomatic prowess by having that.
This is all about him being a strong man, showing that he can do this.
Will 3,000 troops or more have a game-changing effect in Ukraine?
No, not at all.
But why do it if he doesn't need them?
Symbolism.
To show that he can.
Because Putin is showing that he is a guy that can put together international coalitions for purposes of achieving things.
That's why he's doing it.
Is this longstanding?
No, let me restate it.
Is it true that North Korean troops have been training in the Far East in Russia for many years preceding the conflagration in Ukraine?
It's very likely.
The Russians have had a close working relationship with North Korea going back to the Korean War.
During the Korean War, the initial 1951-52 era, Russian pilots were flying North Korean airplanes as part of that effort.
So they've had a working relationship since the beginning of North Korea.
And what has not been widely reported, and I know for a fact from having served on the U.S. Nuclear Strategy Forum, the Russians have been present and advising the North Koreans at every nuclear test of the North Koreans.
So there's an enduring and deep relationship there.
Again, I'm not surprised by any of this.
When I see this, like, yeah, the Russians have been working with the North Koreans forever.
This is just a logical extension to achieve certain policy goals by Putin and to create the perception that, you know, he's the guy that's going to build back some sort of a global Warsaw pact to counter NATO based on the fact they've been talking trash against NATO quite a bit over the past few weeks.
Tony, is...
Oh, yeah.
I was surprised that you saw some additional money.
Biden announced some additional money going over.
Yeah, it's $400 million, and this is just two days ago.
Isn't that going down a rat hole?
That's going to have absolutely no effect.
Whatever's going to happen is going to happen.
And what's going to happen is we're probably going to see the collapse of Ukraine within, I don't know, two months.
I just don't see it being able to continue, especially since you and I both know that the power grid And let's be very clear on this.
Every winter since the beginning of the war, we've seen the Russians degrade the ability of the Ukrainians to defend their airspace.
And as I mentioned from our conversation regarding Israel, these anti-missile things are expensive.
I mean, a Patriot missile to shoot down another missile.
Super-duper expensive.
And Ukraine's burned through these things, so I don't think they've got many left.
So if Putin chooses, he can turn the lights out with impunity in Ukraine.
And I think they're going to be forced, the Ukraine are going to be forced, to the negotiation table based on this.
When the North Korean troops are in Russia, who pays for them?
Oh, I'm sure Russia does.
North Korea.
North Korea as a nation, they are a black market nation, Judge.
They do anything they can to make money.
I think Putin is probably paying Kim Jong-un a lot of money for those troops.
The North Koreans have no real ability.
They have no agrarian resource.
They can barely feed their people.
They have no great technology sector to sell.
So it's all about the Benjamins for the North Koreans.
And so Putin is paying for everything, and plus he's paying for the privilege of having those troops working with Russians near or in Ukraine.
Does it make him look weak?
Does it make him look like he needs other troops?
Or does it make him look like a statesman because he has an alliance with another country, even though it's this rogue, oddball country?
Yeah.
So, the West is trying to portray it as weakness.
Oh, he's desperate.
And no, you have to consider the audience he's going for.
The audience he's going for, Judge, is the BRICS audience.
He is building a long-term, enduring coalition of nations, non-aligned nations against the West.
That's what he's doing.
So, this meets his requirement and his interest to create the perception of him being a team builder.
No, I think it's within character and context of what they're trying to do.
We often, in the West, project our own values onto a situation.
We always do.
So, in this case, I see it right now.
It's like, no, you guys don't get it.
This is on brand for Putin for what he's trying to accomplish.
So, yeah, when other nations see, oh, he's dealing with this nation.
He's actually embracing them as a partner.
That plays well to all these non-aligned nations.
Think about it.
Right.
And, you know, everybody else saying, oh, it's showing weakness.
It's not weakness.
Here's President Putin three days ago at the beginning of the BRICS summit in Kazana.
Very confident, happy.
Well, you'll hear.
I'm cut number 14. We never refused the dollar as a universal currency.
We were blocked from using it.
Now 95% of all external trade of Russia, it is carried out with our partners in national currencies.
They did all this with their own hands.
They thought everything would collapse.
But no, nothing collapsed.
It's developing on a new basis.
Basically saying, okay, Uncle Joe in the White House, not only did your sanctions not work, we are more prosperous than before you imposed them.
Yeah.
Look, the World Bank has upgraded their economy, Judge, to the top level.
The World Bank.
So I'm just saying, and then Putin has been very public about this.
So yeah, when you have the BRICS meetings, when you see this new and effective coalition, economic coalition coming our way, and oh, by the way,
And trust me, because of the weakness shown by the West, because of the disdain that this administration's had for the Arabs.
A lot of people, you know, and by the way, Saudi Arabia has already joined Brex.
So I'm just saying, that's what he's doing.
He's being effective.
He's being deliberate.
He's taking his time.
He's showing leadership.
So again, if you look at what he said just right there regarding economics, he's right.
They're doing very well.
Their economy's doing very well.
If you look at what they're doing with other coalition members, what they're going to do on the military side, he's being very effective.
It's not about how we see it.
It's about how the rest of the world sees it.
And again, Putin is playing to the rest of the world.
He could care less about what we think at this point, especially Sleepy Joe and what Sleepy Joe's doing at the White House.
I mean, Judge, does anybody think that Joe Biden's in charge at this point?
We have a government that's literally kind of like a roller coaster on a downhill move with nobody being able to direct him.
Tony Schaefer, thank you very much, my dear friend.
Thank you for your analysis in both of these hotspot areas.
Always a pleasure.
Hope to see you again soon.
Yes, sir.
Thanks.
Got it.
Coming up later today at 9, excuse me, at 9 this morning Eastern, Professor Gilbert Doctorow at noon, Colonel Larry Wilkerson at 1, Colonel Douglas McGregor at 3, Professor John Mearsheimer,
▲
Export Selection