Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano - LtCOL. Tony Shaffer : Ukraine’s End: Battlefield or Conference Room?

Aug. 21, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano

25:39

LtCOL. Tony Shaffer : Ukraine’s End: Battlefield or Conference Room?

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
	Today is Thursday, August 21st, August 21st.
	Where does the summer go?
	2025, my longtime friend and colleague, Colonel Tony Schaeffer joins us now.
	Colonel Tony, always a pleasure, my dear friend.
	Morning, Judge.
	Good morning.
	Yes, sir.
	Before we get into the, your views on the nitty gritty of where Ukraine is and does it end on the battlefield or in the conference room, what is your general big picture take?
	on the Trump-Putin conference in Alaska, Tony.
	So I've been saying this and I must sound like a broken record.
	You know, I recommend a book called The Russians written by Frederick Smith.
	I read this back in high school in Lisbon back in the 70s.
	It's a thick book, but it really does capture kind of the spirit and culture of Russia.
	And I just think that we have people on our side still advising President Trump who don't understand the Russians.
	And the more you see the bad advice play out, the more I think President Trump is being badly served by those who give him advisors.
	I'll just leave it at that.
	I don't want to get into personalities, but I think.
	there's some real errors being made.
	Now, some of the things that have happened regarding the war, regarding what President Trump has said is absolutely correct.
	And I appreciate the fact that he, President Trump, recognizes there's useless loss of life, thousands.
	He was on, you know, your former network and where I used to hang out on Fox and Friends talking about how he wants to get to heaven by stopping the killing.
	All right, great.
	But to do that, you got to understand the mechanisms to get there.
	And that's where I'm still concerned.
	Judge, the Russians have no reason.
	to stop what they're doing.
	None.
	I mean, they are, by all accounts, making a solid, slow, but solid progress.
	They're encircling Port Trovsk.
	That's one of the enclaves that the Ukraine continues to hold.
	That essentially is kind of the last bastion they have to hold back the Russians from hitting the steps, the open farmland and heading towards the Dnieper River.
	They cannot continue to sustain even the current pace of military operations much more than another 30 days.
	And I think it's, and I keep hearing this, oh, well, you know, there's, do you think the Russians want to keep this going till the winter freeze?
	Like, no, they don't have to.
	They just have to continue to grind down the Ukrainians and they'll just collapse on their own.
	That's what they're going for here.
	And so what President Trump is doing is great, but I don't think.
	I don't think they acknowledge the military situation necessarily as much as they should regarding what Russia's doing.
	When they met in Alaska on Friday and each side.
	side had about an hour and 20 minutes to make its presentation uninterrupted.
	President Putin apparently gave a typically long-winded Russian explanation.
	Remember when Tucker Carlson interviewed him and the first question, which had about 25 words in it, prompted a 45-minute answer?
	Oh, yeah.
	President Putin gave President Trump a lecture, not demeaning, but a lecture.
	on the Russian understanding of how the special military operation came about going all the way back to the 1990s.
	Do you think that the people around Trump A didn't know what Putin was going to say or B didn't prepare the president or C never told him the Russian version of all this.
	Now I think President Trump at this point has been told the Russian version.
	I think he has people like Heath Kellogg and Lindsey Graham who try to explain it away.
	They try to say, well, that's that's not relevant to our interests, which I would argue that's not a wise move.
	I'm a Reagan guy, judge, you know this.
	And I I've been talking to some of the Reagan folks about how Reagan approached this.
	Reagan understood in great detail what the Russians wanted, what they were concerned about.
	And he went about trying to manipulate their thinking in ways that would essentially give us, the United States, the advantage over them so that they, by their own weight and momentum of culture, would self-implode.
	We, you know, the whole thing with Gorbachev, Reykjavik, I think it was played well by the fact that he, Reagan, understood there were vulnerabilities within our system.
	That's what we're not doing.
	Right now, we are trying to basically, you know, put our chest up against their chest up against their chest and and just say well we're we're as strong as you are and we'll just send forces into Ukraine as part of a peacekeeping force.
	I would argue we should be looking at this thing more asymmetrically.
	There are flaws within Putin's own political system that we're not taking full advantage of and I would argue the Ukraine war was winnable.
	It's just you had people like Sullivan, Blinken and Milley who don't understand what we're talking about.
	They do have a flaw.
	What are the flaws in the Russian political system that we can exploit?
	The fact that the oligarchs are not happy with the way things are going.
	This is taken.
	way too long.
	It's cost them way too much money.
	And the fact that we have not, I think, approached the oligarchs in a way that would have been profitable to us and that there's ways of messaging, there's ways of reinforcing the fact that this continued effort to get and take and eat Ukraine is not going to actually get them what they want as quickly as they could.
	There's an element of time here we could have done dealt with.
	And frankly, the other thing is we've known from the beginning about this reselling of oil via India.
	Right.
	It's like, we knew this, Judge.
	We knew the Europeans were talking out of both sides of their face because they're the ones purchasing it through India for a higher price.
	And we pretended not to know that.
	So that's another thing we could have gone at immediately and chose not to do it.
	Just saying, is President Putin under pressure?
	either from his national security people, Intel, military, strategic, Medvedev and those folks, or the oligarchs, or Russian public opinion to for him is largely still favorable.
	And the reason is he's seen as an effective strong man who is focused on the Russian culture, defending the Russian culture.
	It's very powerful.
	The Russian people, the Russian concepts of security, the people are with him.
	So it would take some time to separate that from Putin.
	I don't think it's possible at this point.
	The oligarchs are a little bit different.
	Jugs, they've been continuing to make money.
	That's my point.
	It's like, yeah, they're getting along, going along, and they're still making enough money to make life reasonable.
	So until you actually go to one of his largest constituencies, the oligarchs, and do something to get them to recognize that, you know, this is not a good way of doing business, then it's going to continue.
	So at this point, there's nothing.
	The only thing holding Putin back is, I believe, the economic levers President Trump does talk about, not the sanctions.
	Sanctions are going to go nowhere.
	You've got to get down to the brass tax of where oil flows.
	what the cost is of that oil and how do we upset that process because again, you know, they've talked this great game of funding Putin's war and they've never done it and i think trump could do it if he so chose to do that i think that is an effective lever to look at as a way of trying to deal with putin uh on the second conference the one in the white house on monday uh the president must have given the unmistakable intention uh to president de macron
	prime minister stormer chancellor emmertz and the others uh that the us would be involved militarily in a security guarantee i'm going to play a little clip from president macron it's in english uh it's on uh august 18th which before it was the evening of their meeting before he flew back to france and then ask you, isn't it in, don't answer now.
	I want you to hear what what President Macron says.
	Isn't it inconceivable that the Russians would accept the US military presence in Ukraine?
	Before you answer, Chris cut number 12.
	As it relates to security guarantees, does that mean European troops and does that mean US troops?
	Look, I think it's for me, it's a very important progress of the past few days that your president expressed the clear commitment of the US to be part of the security guarantees.
	It's brand new.
	And last February, when I. I took the responsibility to gather a series of European leaders with President Zelensky in Paris and we followed up in London and we created this coalition of the willing and it was a reaction to the feeling we had that we could see a temptation to go to a rapid peace but without any guarantee for Ukraine and we know what it means it was Georgia 2008 but it was as well Crimea 2014
	And there is full certainty that if you make any peace deal without security guarantee, Russia will never respect its words, will never comply with its own commitments.
	So it's for us totally critical, and this is an essential part of any deal for Ukraine and for the Europeans.
	This is for our own security.
	So this is a very important progress of the past few days that the US now is willing to be part of this.
	Before you respond, Tony, I'm sorry to hit you with two, but you need to see this.
	Foreign Minister Lavrov on this very topic yesterday, Chris cut number four.
	We cannot agree with the fact that it is now proposed.
	now propose to resolve collective security issues without the Russian Federation.
	This will not work.
	We have already explained more than once that Russia does not overstate its interests.
	But we will ensure our legitimate interests firmly and harshly.
	And I'm sure that in the West, and above all in the United States, they understand perfectly well that seriously discussing security issues without the Russian Federation is a utopia, a road to nowhere.
	Russians under any circumstances accept EU, UK, US boots on the ground or jets in the sky any more than we would accept Chinese boots on the ground in Tijuana, Mexico.
	No, as a matter of fact, the Chinese have offered to jump into it, so the Japanese, which is kind of odd, but okay.
	Yeah, it's like, no, it's a non-starter.
	And again, any talk of this is fiction.
	Macron knows this is fiction.
	This is all about the Europeans, again, trying to be problematic and drag their feet and create more problems to slow down the resolution.
	Everybody knows the Russians are not going to accept NATO or any other Western nation's boots in Ukraine, period.
	I've argued, and I would argue if I were advising President Trump directly, that a Switzerland or Finland in the old days style neutrality for Ukraine is the best answer.
	Just let Ukraine get back to being Ukraine, get back to business.
	Just basically accept the fact that the Russians will always want to have a buffer zone of security based on their perception, not mine.
	This is not Tony Schaefer being pro-Russian.
	But the Russians have a perception that they need to have these buffer zones because they've been invaded over and over and over since the beginning of their civilization.
	So it's not me, it's them.
	And until you understand that, and I think this is why, Judge, Putin continues to give these history lessons to try to get Trump to understand and his staff what I'm saying.
	The Russians have an inherent paranoia.
	that's not going to go away simply because you say NATO's not here to cause problem because judge they've seen NATO move east despite the agreement and the Dayton that I think it was the Dayton, Ohio, where they did the Budapest Protocols back in 94.
	And when they allowed Ukraine to become a separate nation, part of that same protocol was NATO would not move east, and it did.
	So they're not going to, you know, this is the root cause thing that President Trump says he's trying to address.
	Well, I mean, does, does President Trump, who often, uh, I mean, he must have said to Macron and the others.
	He certainly said to Fox News, no boots on the ground, but air power.
	I mean, air power is just as offensive to the Russians, maybe more so than boots on the ground.
	So don't the Americans know that the Keith Kellogg prescription, he said NATO, Trump is saying EU.
	Lavrov is saying it doesn't matter under which flag they fly, will never fly with the Russians.
	All right.
	Well, I think that's the thing.
	You have, I'll be blunt, neocons.
	Lindsey Graham's an eacon, Keith Kellogg's an eacon.
	There's a few others smattered in there who simply believe that somehow the Cold War never ended and we have to continue to pursue the Russians as if this was 1984.
	It is what it is.
	And I think that as long as President Trump allows people like that to advise him, you're going to have the Macrons maintain some level of access because – Even the appearance that we're considering putting boots on the ground or any talk of it is stupid.
	It's science fiction.
	You might as well go off and watch an episode of Star Trek and get better information out of this because this is never going to happen.
	All right.
	So the fact that we have pretense as policy is that concerns me.
	Keith Kellogg and Lindsey Graham obviously were not in Alaska, but Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth were.
	What are our...
	Trump, after listening to Putin and Rubio, after listening to Lavrov, have dropped their demand that Ukraine could be open to joining NATO in the future.
	These are death blows to the neocon ideology, aren't they?
	But they keep coming back like a bad penny.
	They do keep coming back.
	I'm sure Lindsey Graham's going to be whispering in his ear on a golf cart this weekend.
	Yeah.
	So, and I think, and look.
	i love president trump uh you guys are closer i'm not his friend you're his friend i admire the man and i've met him as you know but i think he at this point president trump needs to be very definitive on what he wants i don't care what lindsey graham wants we know what lindsey graham and he's he's he's he's going to do things to benefit the military industrial complex so the the way i would i would split the difference here is this I would move for a neutral Ukraine.
	Just say get everybody out militarily, demilitarize it, create a 911 force that sits.
	within current NATO.
	We are building right now, Judge, the largest NATO base in the world in Romania.
	And then we always, by fact, have about two armored brigades exercising or permanently located in Poland now.
	So let NATO be NATO.
	If the Europeans want to focus on building something up, go build NATO.
	Just go over there and play with your NATO.
	Go over there and play with NATO.
	And let the Russians do what they have to do to solidify, to bring governance to the four provinces.
	that they currently have to speak Russian.
	And then those provinces which don't speak Russian, you can get it back.
	And then set that up as the framework.
	to end right now because you're not going to win militarily.
	And this is what I find very distressing about the neocons.
	They would sooner maintain this illusion that we have a military solution and see people die than accept the fact that you got to stop the killing.
	And this is where President Trump gets it, but he doesn't quite get it all the way to say, well, stop listening to these people who are trying to drag this out.
	And so, but that's the way I would approach it.
	Let NATO be NATO.
	Give NATO something to do with a peacekeeping force.
	No boots on the ground.
	Don't say we're going to give air power to anything.
	Just come up with a series of things that allow both sides to kind of go to their corners and let Ukraine become a neutral country that allows for commerce.
	Well, tell me, what does security guarantee mean?
	Does it mean guaranteeing the neutrality as in Austria?
	Or does it mean guaranteeing that there'll be enough military power there in case the Russians invade again?
	What does security guarantee mean?
	I've said this on the network.
	I don't know if I said it this morning, but I said, nobody can define what security guarantees are, what the Russians see and what Macron sees and what we, it's all different.
	So you first off have got.
	First off, you've got to set up kind of what does this mean?
	And to get to that, you've got to understand what the end state judge, I always talk about this with anybody I mentor or work with.
	Always begin with the end in mind.
	What do you want to accomplish?
	Right now, nobody can really tell us what the end state should be.
	So fine, President Trump should define it.
	A neutral Ukraine, no military.
	Get them out.
	That's what I would do if I were Trump.
	It's like, okay, you can't define this.
	I'll define it.
	I'll fill that vacuum.
	This is what the end state should look like and then work towards that because otherwise he's going to be distracted with Lindsey Graham and all these other folks who want to keep the military-industrial complex fed as we move towards whatever outcome will come out of Ukraine.
	One of our viewers writes in tongue firmly planted in cheek, security guarantee means whatever the Federal Reserve says it means.
	Now, look, well, I think we would agree the Federal Reserve needs to go away, but that's another conversation.
	You're whispering to the converted right now, wouldn't it be nice if supply and demand established the interest?
	rates, but Rubio is no Lavrov.
	However, here he is two days ago talking about the weapons shell game.
	Chris cut number five.
	But as the Ukrainians have said to us, and I think have said publicly, the strongest security guarantee they can come up with for their future is to have a strong military moving forward.
	And that's the other dynamic that's changed.
	We're no longer giving Ukraine weapons.
	We're no longer giving Ukraine money.
	We are now selling them weapons, and European countries are paying for it through NATO.
	They are using NATO to buy the weapons and transfer them to Ukraine.
	That's another big change from the way this war was approached just a few, you know, just under the Biden administration.
	First of all, is this true?
	And secondly, if it is true, how does the U.S. gain from this?
	I mean, the military industrial complex gains, but how does the U.S. gain from this?
	Well, I think Rubio is only semi-converted from being a neocon, as I think we would agree from his comments there.
	There's nothing wrong, as I said, if NATO wants to pretend and play army.
	OK, but let's be honest here about the facts right now at this point, the moment we're speaking, that the Mississippi National Guard is larger than the British Army.
	Just saying.
	I mean, the Europeans are a joke.
	And so, OK, you want to sell them weapons, but they have attrited their force structure.
	That's why every time I hear, you know, NATO say, well, we're going to send up to Russia, it's like, no, you're not.
	not it's not it's a joke so that's what i'm saying it's like we need to get past this whole this whole friction this whole fictionist policies like you know these are not the europeans of the cold war judge these you know these are not the europeans you're looking for so just get real uh if you're going to sell them weapons okay why what's what what will you get out of that, ultimately?
	Is that strengthening NATO or are you just paying Raytheon some money to keep people on the work line and employed?
	We have not established what I think we need to do is a global strategy.
	Essentially, what are we as the American Republic?
	What do we want to accomplish?
	Jenny Vance gets it.
	I think a few others get it.
	It's like we need to take a step back and assess what our role is in the world.
	Do we want to be seen as a bully or do we want to be seen as a friend?
	Bruce Fine, our friend Bruce Fine, Bruce always talks about wanting to be the best neighbor to someone but never be the bully and i think now's the time to re-look that because right now throwing you know letting uh the children in europe buy weapons it's not really going to accomplish anything and i think it would just add to the continued muddling of policy so okay uh before we go tell us about your your new podcast so we're developing we're we're uh monetizing
	my x feed uh you know te you guys can find me te spooky on that just go follow me we're going to start off by doing interesting uh interviews with people people like the judge hopefully we're goingre going to figure out how to do that where I'm actually going to Vegas this weekend.
	Not that I'm going to be gambling.
	I'm actually going to be working on fixing all this, putting it all together.
	And we're going to make it fun and interactive.
	People can come ask me questions.
	I've already got the subscribers asking questions they want answers to.
	Some of those questions may not be answerable, but we'll give it a shot.
	But I appreciate you allowing me to get this in there, Judge.
	And Judge, I obviously want to talk to you about 9-11 stuff, which, by the way, you were one of the first folks who supported me after I got fired for being a whistleblower.
	So God bless you.
	And I always appreciate that.
	Thank you.
	It was the genesis of our long and happy friendship.
	Tony, thank you very much for your time.
	Good luck with the podcast.
	Thank you for your invitation, which of course I cordially and with an open mind accept.
	And we'll see you again in another week or so right here.
	Great.
	Great.
	Thanks, Judge.
	Thank you.
	All the best.
	A busy day coming up for you today at 9 o'clock.
	This morning, Professor Jeffrey Sachs at 11 o'clock just back from two weeks in Moscow and elsewhere in Russia, Scott Ritter at 1 o'clock, Professor Glenn Deesen at 2 o'clock., Colonel Larry Wilkerson.
	At 3 o'clock, Professor John Mearsheimer.

▲