All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 25, 2024 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
25:42
LtCOL. Tony Shaffer :
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Tuesday, November 26th, 2024.
Thanksgiving week here in the U.S. Colonel Tony Schaefer joins us now.
Colonel Schaefer, always a pleasure, my dear friend.
Thanks, Judge.
Good to be here.
Can you tell us if the use of the Aresnik missile by the Russians has continued?
Do the elites in Europe and do the elites in the American State Department understand the significance of this tool available to President Putin?
No, they have not.
Nobody in the West seems to be getting the memo.
The British just proposed, Akir Stalmer proposed, I think it was yesterday, that they deploy British and French troops.
To Ukraine as a tripwire, so they can activate Article 5, so clearly he didn't get the memo.
Macron goes back and forth.
He's, you know, the French, just saying, who knows.
But the British clearly did not get the memo.
Here, we continue to see bellicose language and resistance from DOD and Blinken.
They basically ignored it.
They've actually proposed to reintroduce nuclear weapons to Ukraine.
That's how insane this is.
Now, the popular narrative judge is, oh, we're going to give Ukraine back the weapons that they gave up in the 90s as part of the agreement.
And it's like, no, you're not going to give them back.
We never had them.
The Russians took the weapons.
Ukraine never had weapons.
This is insanity.
Ukraine, during the Cold War, was part of the Soviet Union.
When the Soviet Union broke up, Russia pulled home all of its nuclear weapons.
Some of those were on Ukrainian property.
So this whole idea, and I like this word, and I use it often, it's wackadoodle.
I mean, they don't even acknowledge facts as they are.
They want to literally...
This is Dr. Strange Love stuff, Judge.
It's insane.
What would the British or the French accomplish by troops there?
First of all, they have so few, and secondly, the Russians would annihilate them, wouldn't they, Tony?
Dying valiantly is the only purpose I can think of, because first off, To your point, the British are decimated by their own political and budgetary choices.
The British military, I think, the whole British military is smaller than our Marine Corps.
I mean, the whole thing.
And I think they've pretty much given up any of their effective weapons systems to Ukraine already, so I don't know what they're going to fight with.
And then the French, too.
I mean, I roll my eyes.
The French have already deployed foreign legion folks.
They're already kind of in the battle, and they've had people die there.
I don't want to go down that path too much, but suffice it to say they've had members of, citizens of both Britain and French, France die in Ukraine.
As a matter of fact, I think there was a British national captured in Russia, in Kursk, that the Russians now have.
Just saying.
So the idea would be, oh, we'll get America to come join us.
Like, yeah, it's not going to happen.
You put troops, I can't speak for Donald Trump.
But I can speak for what I think would be the response of the generals I know.
It's like, you put your troops in harm's way, we're not coming to get them out.
It's your fault.
And it would definitely be an escalation because they want to activate Article 5. So bad they can taste it.
That's what's going on here.
Well, why do they want to activate Article 5?
To force Donald Trump to bring troops in?
I mean, he would still, under Article 5, have the option not to bring them in.
If the French Foreign Legion is inept, if the British don't have the soldiers, if the Germans don't want to do it, if Trump refuses, what are they going to gain by triggering Article 5?
They think it's a narrative, Judge.
Everything they do is a narrative.
Remember, from the beginning of the war, Even before, in 2014, the whole narrative that Ukraine's the good guy and that Russians are bad.
I'll be clear, and I know people aren't going to like this, it's a civil war.
These two nations have a history going back a long way.
And this war is about resources.
It's about controlling the rare earths, the gas and oil, all the stuff in the Donbass into the Black Sea.
That's what this is all about.
Don't fool yourself.
It's not about nationalism.
It's always about resources.
Go watch Three Days of the Condor, just to refresh your memory on this stuff.
And to me, it's been a narrative war.
Both sides do it.
More the Ukrainians.
And from day one, from the time of the Special Military Operation, which is the proper term for it, Putin decided they were going to take back certain territories they felt were justifiably Russian.
They started with Crimea.
They moved on.
It is what it is.
Not here to judge.
telling you what the facts are.
Once that started...
Go ahead.
Are your sources telling you that someone, either someone in the West Wing or in Paris or in London, is talking about reintroducing nuclear weapons into the theater of war in Ukraine?
So this has been proposed here.
It's been leaked, I think, to The Economist as a concept, saying that this would be something the United States would consider.
I think this is Tony Blinken talking out of his part of his body he's not supposed to.
And I think it's all simply bluster at this point.
It's desperation.
It's a narrative.
As I was trying to explain, ever since the war started, it's all been about narrative.
Remember, Judge?
Putin was sick.
He's going to die.
We're going to get the Wonder Weapon in if we just get the tanks in, if we just get the F-16s.
This is another narrative.
The new narrative is, We're going to give them back their nuclear weapons.
It means absolutely nothing.
It's not going to happen.
But again, it's designed to create a certain perception that somehow the West is more effective or has more options than they do.
Russia's winning.
They're winning decisively right now.
And this is but one other thing to throw up some dust to try to obfuscate what the reality is right now going on.
And it is something that, Are you of the view that the Biden administration wants to do just that?
Wants to extend the war in Ukraine or cause some sort of a conflagration so that this mess lands in Donald Trump's lap?
And if you are of that view, do the elites in Europe want to do the same thing?
So it's the neocons as a political class, and it's global.
And the people who are expressing it, and it's not Joe Biden.
I mean, Joe Biden tried to walk up into the Amazon to find a place to hunt, for God's sake, you know, back about a week ago.
This is Winkin' Blinkin' and Nod.
This is Lloyd Austin, Tony Blinkin' and Jake Sullivan.
And this is what they're trying to do because they're committed to this larger global effort to maintain this veneer of Ukraine is going to win.
They can win if we just continue to pour money into it.
And even Zelensky has, I think, backed off that because he's even saying now there's a way Ukraine can prevail militarily.
So I think it's an overall globalist effort.
World Economic Forum, whatever flavor of globalists do you want to care, Alex Soros, they're all kind of pushing for this continuation of investment in Ukraine, no matter what the consequences are.
And by the way, the belief still is somehow if they just continue to do this, they're going to wear down Russia and collapse Russia.
That's what I think they can do.
How startled were they by the Oreshnik?
Did U.S. and British intel...
Know of its power?
Know it was coming?
Or was everybody surprised?
We knew it was coming because there were some tragic tests of it about 10 years ago.
This has been coming for a while.
This is one of the reasons, Judge, that Mike Pompeo rightly, as Secretary of State, pulled us out of the INF Treaty.
Remember the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force Missile Treaty that was signed in 88 or 89?
I think it was 88. 87, 88. If we and Russia had been in that treaty, there'd be no Oreshnik.
No, the Russians already, they were developing it.
That's why we pulled out.
It's like, we're not playing.
So that was the issue.
The Russians decided to develop this intermediate-range missile.
This has been in the works for 20 years.
So it is what it is.
I'm not here to, I'm just saying, that's why.
That was the justification.
When it was used, and its power and ferocity and speed became known, Was the Pentagon, was the West Wing, was the State Department, was Langley, Intel, was MI6, caught off guard?
The Intel folks weren't.
I think the American public was.
This weapon, the Hazel Rubich, is a modified RS-26.
It's a cut-down intercontinental missile.
But what makes it different, it's not a hypersonic missile.
It has hypersonic MIRVs, multiple independent vehicles.
That's what makes it unique.
Because when you fire this thing off, it's like a conventional rocket.
It goes up.
It's apogee.
And then that's where it splits off.
And then you have the warheads, which are hypersonic.
That's what makes it different.
And those things shoot down faster than most defenses can intercept them.
And so right now, the deployed countermeasures, Obviously didn't stop it.
That's what a lot of people were surprised by.
We have the Patriots and all these other things front deployed in Ukraine.
It didn't do a thing to slow down these 36 warheads, inert warheads, I might add.
They didn't even have explosive charges.
But that sprinkling down of all that, that was to send a strong message.
Those things were aimed with precision, and it should have scared Western leadership.
I'm not sure if it did.
I don't mean to sound naive, but...
Is there anything faster?
Well, yes, but I can't get into it.
There are things that we have developed that could potentially counter it.
I've got to be very careful.
There are things that were contemplated during Star Wars.
If you go back and look at the Reagan era Star Wars systems, there were things within that constellation of countermeasures that could be used.
That's as much as I can say about it without getting in trouble.
With that said, nothing within our current deployed countermeasures can stop that.
Some of those things go up to 10,000 miles an hour.
How far can it go?
Can it cross the Atlantic?
Oh, yeah.
The intermediate things can hit Paris or London in about 15 minutes or less.
Very little time to act.
The intercontinental version of this could probably hit the United States in about 25 minutes.
okay the um united states continues to deploy because we know it takes american technicians and people with top secret security clearances to do so in conjunction with the ukrainians attack onto uh russian land space they have apparently done so even after the arrest neck was fired why don't They get the message.
Do they not take President Putin seriously, Tony?
They want World War III.
This is how bad...
They would rather see us have a nuclear exchange rather than give up the power influence they have.
That's how evil these people are.
I've said this before.
The neocons are Trotskyites with a death wish.
And the Democrats, the neolibs, have signed a board.
The Hillary Clintons, the Joe Bidens, they're all in this for the purposes of maintaining power.
They don't care what it costs.
And they would leave a burnt cinder for Donald Trump to recover from rather than allowing for the peaceful transition of power to the new president.
I mean, if there's anybody that's ever been anti-Democrat, it's the Democrats and the neocons.
Is Mike Waltz, Congressman Waltz, the about-to-be national security advisor, a neocon, a bosom buddy of Jake Sullivan?
He's not.
No, I know Mike.
He's not.
So our friends over at the Duran call, I think they've been calling us who are not neocons, but not doves.
I don't know what name, but I would consider him, like me, a Reagan guy.
And I know you and I don't always agree on military use of force either, but I still align myself way more with Walter Jones than what's her name, Cheney, than Dick Cheney.
So I'm just saying that Mike is not a neocon.
He's not going to seek to resolve diplomatic issues with the use of military force as the primary predicate.
But he's not going to sit back and be someone who does not react to threats with an adequate alert.
Cut number five.
President Trump has been very clear about the need to end And so what we need to be discussing is who's at that table, whether it's an agreement, an armistice, how to get both sides to the table, and then what's the framework of a deal.
That's what we'll be working with this administration until January and then beyond.
And I also want to be clear on one thing, Julian.
Jake and I, Jake Sullivan and I have had discussions.
We've met.
For our adversaries out there that think this is a time of opportunity, that they can play one administration off the other, they're wrong.
And we are hand in glove.
We are one team with the United States in this transition.
It would never have said that during the campaign.
Well, I think he's got to say that.
And he did say also that he did not, they did not, the Trump team, authorize the escalation.
He did specifically say that, no, we were not consulted before they did that.
What he's got to say, and I think it's correct, don't be messing with the United States.
Don't be thinking this somehow.
I get that.
I get that.
Don't assume that this is a time of an interregnum or weakness.
But for him to say we're hand in glove and we're on the same team.
I mean, Sullivan is the one who brought us Ukraine.
That's correct.
But saying the right thing about Donald Trump bringing everybody to the table.
And I believe the only thing that's held back Putin, to be honest with you, I don't know this.
I've not talked to Mike.
I've not talked to Donald Trump or his team.
But I believe the only thing that's held back Putin from an even more vigorous response, as in using kinetic weapons to make a point.
is the fact that I think there's back-channel communications between Trump and Putin saying, just wait, let us get to 20 January, and we'll start working to resolve this.
Does the Trump administration intend to use diplomacy or threats to end the war in Ukraine?
I've seen this from Seb Gorka, and I don't believe...
I've got to be a little bit...
Donald Trump, President Trump, has a certain way of doing business.
My interactions with him has always been, let's figure out how to cut a deal.
A deal generally means you have to listen to the other side, you have to internalize what they want, and you have to start figuring out how to negotiate.
I've never seen threats be the first thing most business people use.
Usually it's a dialogue first, and then there may be threats down the road.
But at this point, I don't see the threats.
And Putin would be impervious to threats.
Judge everything that the West has threatened Putin with, he's overcome.
There's vulnerabilities that Trump, I think, could remind him of, which we have not taken advantage of.
And by the way, one of the things which will hurt Putin is Trump's drill baby drill.
Trump intends to drop the bottom out of the gas and oil market.
By opening up drilling futures and trying to drop the price, and that's going to hurt Putin.
But I don't think that's a threat.
That's just something he's going to do.
Well, here's an incoming person to the Trump administration.
You just mentioned them by name, who apparently doesn't get that message.
Here's Sebastian Gorka at his bellicose worst.
Cut number 10. I'll give one tip away that the president has mentioned.
He will say to that murderous former KGB colonel, that thug, Does he speak for Donald Trump?
He's about to enter the White House as his senior national security advisor.
I can't imagine.
Based on my conversations with some of the Trump folks, that was an endorsed comment.
Two reasons.
First, there's already communication ongoing.
I think both men, Trump and Putin, have signaled they want to sit down and talk.
So to me, that comment is redundant without purpose, the comment of Seb Korka.
Secondly, I think that the path forward has already been fairly well defined about what's going to happen.
Neither side of the inbound Trump team, from what I've seen from the folks I've spoken to, want to seek essentially a dialogue that will allow for all parties, even NATO, to come to the table, Judge.
I don't think, you know, this whole thing about Trump wanting to dissolve NATO, I don't see that.
I think they want to have a dialogue.
Does Sebastian Gorka speak for the president?
Not that I know of.
Not that I know of.
Those are not comments that I know were endorsed by Trump.
Trump would have to speak for himself, but not anybody I've spoken to has said that he was told to say that.
All right.
Switching to another part of the world, is the Taliban still an issue?
Well, we're still paying them money, if that's your question.
I think that's going to end within the first couple of months.
One of the things that's going to be done, two things, depending on.
First off, leadership's going to be removed.
New leadership comes in.
State Department, same thing.
So there's going to have to be a reckoning of what exactly we're paying for regarding this.
It was not negotiated with the government of Afghanistan.
But my question to you is, is the Taliban, are these jihadists still an issue for Donald Trump or is it just hyperbole when somebody rants and raves about them?
I. At this point.
We need to essentially make sure that the Taliban go do their thing.
We don't pay them any more money.
It's a Pakistani issue, Judge.
It's not our issue.
It's the Pakistanis to deal with.
Okay, here's Sebastian Gorka on that.
Cut number 12. The resurgence of global jihadism.
People think that it went away, but it didn't.
With the surrender of Afghanistan, the disgraceful surrender of Afghanistan by Joe Biden, by Lloyd Austin, his Secretary of Defense, we have a new hub of jihadism.
We left 80, well, just $83 billion worth of weapons for the Taliban.
Al-Qaeda is resurgent.
ISIS is still out there.
Whether it's the Houthis or Whether it's the numerous proxies of Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas, the threat is as great as it's ever been.
So, let me break this out.
I don't think Seb got the memo, just saying.
The Taliban have always been a regional threat.
They are an extension of the Pashto.
The Pashto are the ruling tribe of the region.
Never been expeditionary.
That is to say, they don't leave Afghanistan to go other places.
The issue right now is al-Qaeda and ISIS-K.
ISIS-K are threats which have been simmering, but not to the point of where they were under Barack Obama.
There is not a quote-unquote resurgence because, for better or for worse, Special Operations Command has been fairly effective in staying ahead of these groups.
I don't want to get into details, but...
So I don't agree.
Is radical Islam a threat?
Radical Islam is a threat to Islam primarily, and that's something that Islam has to deal with.
Last question.
Can Donald Trump end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours, as he stated many times during the campaign?
I'm sorry to laugh, but...
I think within 24 hours of his inauguration, we're going to see a form of ceasefire.
Because the Russians will have triumphed?
I think that the Russians will be respectful enough And by the way, they're winning.
And I think they'll look to consolidate what they've gained.
They may very well have achieved their goals by January 20th.
I think they've achieved their goals.
Got it.
Tony Schaefer, a pleasure, my dear friend.
Thank you.
Congratulations again on your election in the public office.
A happy Thanksgiving to you and your family.
Thank you.
I look forward to serving the people of Chawan County, North Carolina.
Thank you, Judge.
I'm sure they look forward to having you do so.
Thank you, Tony.
Thank you.
Coming up for the remainder of the day, at noon, Aaron Maté at 2 o 'clock, Colonel Larry Wilkerson at 3 o 'clock, Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski at 5 o 'clock, Chief Master Sergeant.
Dennis Fritz, we are up to 489,000 subscriptions for Judging Freedom.
Our goal now is just get us over that finish line of a half a million by Christmas.
Like and subscribe.
You might even get us there by very early December.
▲
Export Selection