Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano - LtCOL. Tony Shaffer : How Long Can Ukraine Last?

July 31, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano

20:53

LtCOL. Tony Shaffer : How Long Can Ukraine Last?

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi, everyone.
	Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
	Today is Thursday, July 31st, 2025.
	Where's the summer gone?
	Colonel Tony Schaefer joins us now.
	Colonel Schaefer, always a pleasure, my dear friend.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	I want to spend some time exploring your knowledge and ideas about the state of things in Ukraine.
	Can we start with a big picture?
	Where do things stand now as we're on the cusp of August 2025 militarily in the air on the ground?
	So militarily, right now, Portrolsk, I think, is the key meeting engagement between the two sides militarily.
	Portrolsk is seen as kind of the endgame.
	And a lot of folks believe that once this location, once this battle is done, the Russians are going to have the ability to kind of move towards the Dniper River pretty much unimpeded.
	There's just not many forces left.
	In the air, the Russians are acting with impunity regarding drones and missiles.
	The anti-air defense systems that we gave the Ukrainians, that the Europeans gave them, are depleted to the point of where they're barely effective.
	And that's why you're seeing the drones getting through.
	And we've given them something called the Hawk.
	The Hawk, Judge, is an anti-missile system, it's an air defense system from the 1950s.
	And it's been upgraded a little bit, but the Hawk, that's how bottom of the barrel they are and we are regarding what we're giving them.
	So the military situation is dire.
	And I think the endgame, everything is left equal, is pretty darn close to at least the partition of Ukraine should the Russians decide to go forward militarily.
	When a air defense system is degraded, is it because they have run out of projectiles with which to assault the incoming drones, or is it because the drones have destroyed what's on the ground, the system itself?
	Both.
	The Patriot missile systems themselves have been targeted and destroyed by the Russians.
	So that's why they need more.
	Because you could always rearm Patriot missile systems.
	They're essentially renewable.
	I mean, you just send more missiles to it.
	But that's what's happened.
	The Russians have hit the system, the launch systems, and the Europeans have been slow to get more back.
	As a matter of fact, the Germans were going to give them some of theirs with the promise that they'd get some new ones from us as a priority.
	That's fallen through.
	Things like that are just are happening.
	And some of the drones, you wouldn't be able to get hit with air defense missiles anyway.
	So the whole thing I think is problematic at this point.
	I just don't think what the Russians producing a thousand drones a day.
	Think about that, Judge.
	A thousand drones a day.
	There's no way the West could keep up, let alone Ukraine by itself.
	Okay.
	Recently, actually earlier this week on Monday, Tony, I'm sure you know this, the president was seated at one of his golf clubs in Scotland with Sir Kier Stormer, the prime minister of Great Britain, and he issued a threat to President Putin, basically saying, I want the war over or I want a ceasefire in 10 to 12 days or else.
	And the or else was secondary tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil.
	He now has moved that deadline up to tomorrow, which is five days from when he issued the threat, not 10 or 12.
	It's his own math.
	Is that kind of a threat to President Putin going to have any effect whatsoever on the Russian military activity in Ukraine?
	I don't think so.
	I'm not sure who's advising President Trump on Russians, but threatening the Russians when they're winning, it's really not a good combination.
	I think the Russians have economic vulnerabilities, no doubt.
	But the approach of going after one of our key upcoming trade partners, we're already doing a lot of trade with India, and trying to convince the Chinese to do something when they're economically challenged and need the oil, I think practical, common sense relationships behind the scenes are going to prevail no matter what President Trump wants.
	I love President Trump, but I just don't know who's advising him on this because this is not going to work.
	Putin and the Russian people, judges, you know from history, can take a great deal of suffering.
	And by the way, their economy, while shaky, is not bad.
	I mean, they're not starving.
	They don't have breadlines.
	So it's kind of like, I think Putin wants to deal with President Trump.
	I really do think he does.
	But at the same time, he's not going to give up a winning hand.
	It's like sitting at a poker game and you've got, you know, a straight flush and the other guy's tried to bluff you with a pair of twos.
	It's like, and he's your friend.
	It's like, you know, I'm going to win this hand.
	So I don't know why you're doing this.
	So I think that's the way I look at this.
	Senator Graham, who, as we know, is often given to extreme statements, made a statement on Fox News the other night, basically saying, I'm going to quote him, even though there's a barnyard phrase in here.
	We're going to whoop your ass, Putin.
	I want your, only Lindsey Graham can say this.
	I want your opinion of this, Tony.
	Chris, cut number one.
	Putin, your turn is coming.
	You know, Donald Trump is the Scotty Shuffler of American politics and foreign diplomacy, and he's about to put a whooping on your ass.
	What's going to happen here is that Trump is going to impose tariffs on people that buy Russian oil.
	China, India, and Brazil, those three countries buy about 80% of cheap Russian oil.
	That's what keeps Putin's war machine going.
	So President Trump's going to put 100% tariff on all those countries, punishing them for helping Putin.
	Putin can live through sanctions.
	He could give a damn about Russian soldiers.
	But China, India, and Brazil, they're about to face a choice between the American economy or helping Putin.
	And I think they're going to come pick the American economy.
	Is this going to have any effect whatsoever on Putin's decision-making?
	No.
	So Lindsey Graham is another.
	By the way, for an Air Force colonel, he talks pretty tough.
	As a lawyer, I should say.
	No offense to lawyers.
	He's an Air Force Colonel?
	He was a Reserve Air Force JAG, Judge Advocate General Colonel.
	Did he ever see combat like you and the other guys?
	No more.
	He saw combat in the Rayburn building going for sandwiches at noon, trying to fight the lions.
	That's his comment.
	Just saying.
	Just saying.
	I think he almost talked over our friend Walter Jones trying to get to a buffet one time.
	That's his comment.
	That kind of hyperbolic statement, that over-the-top support of President Trump, maybe that's the kind of advice Trump is getting.
	Maybe Senator Graham is whispering this in his ear in the golf cart.
	Yeah, so that's the issue.
	The other thing that I don't think Graham is considering, Judge, is BRICS.
	The nations he's talking about threatening have established essentially an alternate trading partnership to us.
	The BRICS has been growing.
	President Trump's been threatening BRICS nations, but it's kind of like some of those nations aren't going to worry about it.
	India's not going to worry about it.
	India has alternate markets they can go to.
	And the Chinese are the Chinese.
	Chinese are going to do what they want.
	You know, they've been threatened by Vander Leyden, VanderKrazy, the lady from Europe, the EU, because, and Z just said, yeah, go.
	There's supposed to be a two-day talk between the EU and China.
	And Vander Leyden got all in Z's face.
	And it's like, yeah, you can go now.
	And they kicked him out.
	So the United States is not the only game in town.
	And some of these economies require large amounts of oil.
	The two largest nations, the two nations with the largest population, let me phrase it correctly, Russia, I mean, I'm sorry, China and India need oil, need gas.
	And so they'll continue to trade no matter what the United States does or does not do.
	Again, you can't live without oil.
	21st century economies cannot run without oil.
	Russia has it and they're going to sell it.
	We'll be talking later today to Pepe Escobar, who will tell us that the gross domestic product of BRICS vastly exceeds that of the United States.
	They are economically very solvent and very self-sufficient.
	How much longer do you think the United States will continue to arm Ukraine?
	I mean, if Pete Hegseth were here with us alone, wouldn't he admit Ukraine is lost?
	It's over?
	I think anybody at the Pentagon who's actually studied the war and understands the current situation would be honest and say, yeah, it's done.
	We're done.
	There is nothing militarily short of us going to a full-blown military support.
	That is to say, we're going to act like Ukraine's a NATO nation and act to mobilize our military, move our economy to wartime footing.
	Nothing is going to work.
	The Russian economy is functioning at a wartime level.
	It would take us at least 18 months to catch up.
	So the military issue is over.
	Right now, Judge, they lost all their Abrams except for four.
	So we've asked the Australians to send them some of their Abrams.
	It's going to take six months to get them there.
	It's like, yeah, we'll give them to them.
	What good are tanks in an era of drones?
	Well, if you're going to take ground and hold it, armor is still an effective thing, but you have to have countermeasures.
	You have to have essentially, like you've seen in Star Trek, you have all these sensors, you got force fields.
	You got to have countermeasures.
	There are countermeasures that can go on tanks and shoot down things.
	But again, it's our stuff, not their stuff.
	We're not going to give them that job.
	We're not going to give them that.
	Back to the president and Secretary Hagseth.
	How much longer do you think we will be supplying the Ukrainians?
	I mean, at some point, the Joe Biden tranche, which was enacted by the Congress in late 24, will run out.
	And Trump will either have to go to Congress and ask for more, which he says he's never going to do, but we all know how he changes his mind, or just stop sending stuff there.
	So I think I don't know this.
	I didn't talk to Pete about this, Pete Hakesett, but I think Pete recognizes that throwing more military material into that is a waste.
	I think that's why he was reluctant to sign off on more equipment.
	With that said, Pete has to work within the context of whatever President Trump tells him to do.
	Again, this is Tony Schaefer.
	This is not me speaking for Pete or the Pentagon.
	I think the Pentagon wants to be done with this.
	I think they know, like we do, that you're not going to win this militarily.
	There's some things you can do on the periphery, some what we call shaping operations, but nothing significant.
	So I think people are ready to move on.
	Pete has other things to do.
	He's trying to get the force back into shape.
	Should there be a conflict with China, for example, there's other priorities now.
	So I think that's what people would tell you if They could be honest and step away from the policy.
	The policy right now is to support Ukraine, which, again, if I were advising the Pentagon, I'd say do everything you can to stop it because it's not going to get us anything at this point.
	I want your opinion of this rather controversial statement made in public by General Christopher Donahue, who is the commander of U.S. troops in Europe and the Middle East and Africa.
	He's got an enormous command under him.
	I don't know how he could have said something like this without the express approval of Secretary Hegseth and President Trump.
	But you let me know what you think.
	Chris, cut number 16.
	If you look at Kalinograd, and it's, you know, you can argue back and forth, but it's about 47 miles wide, surrounded by NATO on all sides.
	There's absolutely no reason why that A2AD bubble to deter Russia, we cannot take that down from the ground in a timeframe that is unheard of and faster than we've ever been able to do.
	We've already planned that.
	We've already developed it.
	He's threatening to put ground troops in Russia?
	Well, it's kind of like and or so.
	So the fact he's talking about a tactical engagement potential regarding Kaleningrad and the whole corridor between the sea and Russia, it's like, so what?
	We could do that during the Cold War.
	Maybe not as rapidly as he's bragging about, but and then what?
	As Tony Zinni once told me, he'd get called in, you know, General Zinni, Commander Sendcom, used to get called in by Bill Clinton and asked, can you do something militarily?
	Like, yeah, but then what?
	So what does this mean?
	What does this mean in the larger context?
	Okay, I get what you're saying, but in protocol, to me, this is startling because he's saying we are prepared planned and trained for American troops on the ground in Russia.
	Should he be saying something like that without the approval of his civilian superiors?
	Well, this guy was the guy, you know, he's been doing some things that I think were outside of the bounds.
	These generals can kind of get full of themselves.
	So this is my, this is Tony Schaefer's opinion.
	I don't think he got approval to say that.
	I think he is one of these guys who believes that we should be a lot more aggressive with Russia.
	And he spoke out in an aggressive manner in a way that I don't think that's all that helpful.
	Just saying.
	I don't think it's helpful.
	And it's antagonistic without a reason.
	Okay.
	What is this thing he's referring to, Tony?
	A2AD bubble.
	What does that mean?
	So that's essentially air defense artillery.
	Like we could move in with full security with a ground force that could move in with impunity.
	What he's basically saying is we could act with impunity to shut that thing down rapidly.
	That's the civilian speak.
	Okay.
	How stable is the Zelensky regime?
	It's not.
	There's already hints that Zhaluzny is going to be called back from being the ambassador to the UK to take his place.
	As a matter of fact, I think Vogue is doing some sort of a fashion shoot with Zhaluzny or something.
	I mean, it's like there's hints that Zelensky's expiration date may be approaching.
	And I think a lot of folks are, you know, I know President Trump's fed up with him.
	I think a lot of other European leaders are fed up with him.
	And I think right now there's an effort by the collective West, as my friends over at the Durand call it, the Collective West to be done with him.
	And so I think that's where it's going.
	I think they're going to try to get Zaluzny back to be the president.
	Not that I think it'll make much of a difference.
	And then have Zelensky kind of shown the door, probably by October.
	I don't think he's got much past October coming.
	So this would be a decision probably at the highest levels, the president himself, maybe in conjunction with CIA and MI6.
	MI6 are his bodyguards, aren't they?
	Probably.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	I don't know who is in close to Zelensky, but I think this discussion happened with Kier Stallmer already between President Trump and Stallmer.
	And I think other Western leaders are ready to be done with Zelensky.
	I think he's been a useful puppet.
	The Washington Post has been reporting that Russia's military losses are in excess of a million.
	Is that credible?
	You mean a million men?
	A million men.
	I mean, Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern and Scott Ritter, all your buddies are saying that's absurd.
	It's not even a third of that number.
	I say the killed is probably between 40 and 50 max.
	And I think that's high.
	Other casualties, maybe a quarter million, maybe, but not a million.
	No way.
	I don't think so.
	So when the Washington Post says something like that, who wants it out there?
	CIA?
	I think it's, again, part of the overall information campaign that's meant to try to prop up Ukraine to make it look like it's winning and the Russians are losing.
	And again, Judge, we've been talking about this for years because the war has been going on for years.
	The constant Russian economy is in tatters.
	The Russian army is losing.
	We've been hearing this over and over when the reality has been the opposite.
	This is more of the same thing, where you have what I would call the deep state still engaged in an operation that they have decided is more important than our own national security to prop up a perception that the Ukrainians are winning and Russia is losing.
	And that's what it is.
	And by the way, I wish someone would remind President Trump, this is, you know, the deep state's kind of yanking your chain here by doing this stuff, you know, because he keeps saying he wants to get rid of the deep state, here you go.
	Here's a big example of it right here.
	So, how much longer can Ukraine last, whether it's under Zelensky or Zaluzhny?
	Um, well, without outside intervention, uh, again, maybe 30, 60 days.
	Uh, the meeting engagement right now, as I said, at Por Trovsk is essential, and they're going to lose.
	There's just nothing there to stop the Russians once they get done with that, to go to the NEPR if they so choose.
	Regarding the overall state of the economy, it's just, you know, without outside intervention, Ukraine is not going to win.
	It's not going to prevail.
	And you have a real danger without all the economic, you know, the Europeans haven't stepped up, Judge.
	They kept talking this big game.
	Oh, we'll take place in the United States.
	Like, no, they won't.
	They can barely meet their NATO requirements as it is now.
	So I think we talk about this early October.
	We're looking at catastrophic failure of the Ukrainian government.
	Colonel Schaefer, thank you very much.
	Thanks for your time.
	Much appreciated.
	Thank you for seeing you again, my friend.
	All the best.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, Tony.
	Coming up later today at 11 this morning, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson at 3 this afternoon.
	Professor John Mearsheimer at 4 this afternoon.

▲