Skip to content
Home » Transcript: Is Trump For Peace? – Col. Douglas Macgregor

Transcript: Is Trump For Peace? – Col. Douglas Macgregor

Read the full transcript of a conversation between Judge Andrew Napolitano and U.S. Army Retired Combat Veteran Col. Douglas Macgregor on Judging Freedom Podcast titled “Is Trump For Peace?”, premiered March 13, 2025.

TRANSCRIPT:

Introduction to the Ceasefire Debate

ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, March 13th, 2025. Colonel Douglas Macgregor is here with us on “Is this ceasefire deal serious?” Where is it going to go?

[Advertisement removed]

Colonel Macgregor, welcome here, my dear friend. Thank you for accommodating my time.

Colonel, in one week, Secretary of State Rubio announced a ceasefire to which the Ukrainians had agreed. President Trump announced the resumption of President Biden’s military support by providing military gear to Ukraine and American intel. And the Ukrainians dispatched hundreds of drones to attack a residential neighborhood in Moscow. What’s going on?

Russian Perspective on the Ceasefire

COL. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR: I think the first thing is it’s unfortunate that we continue to discuss our negotiations and interactions with the Russians in public. I don’t see any point to it. And I think as a result, we’re going to be embarrassed somewhat by this latest ceasefire offer.

If there is anything the Russians have made clear repeatedly, it’s that a ceasefire in and of itself is not acceptable. They see that as simply buying time for their Ukrainian opponent to receive more weapons, equipment, cash, whatever, rebuild themselves and carry on the fight. And frankly, there’s a lot of evidence to suggest that that’s probably the case. So I don’t know why we start with this ceasefire business. We say we want to save lives, but that’s not the answer.

The second thing, of course, is ending the aid. People say, well, it really doesn’t matter. It’ll take so long for the additional aid to reach Ukraine. What difference does it make?

It makes a lot of difference if you’re a Russian. If you are on the one hand saying, I want to normalize relations between my country, the United States, and Russia, I’m sincere and I’m serious about it, then why not stop the aid to people who are absolutely committed to killing Russians? That ought to be done right away.

So I think that’s a serious mistake. And again, this is not Donald Trump’s war. He said that. He didn’t want it. So why sustain the aid? That doesn’t make any sense. That’s not a bargaining chip. That’s a self-inflicted wound. It tends to undermine the sincerity and the truth of everything he’s saying.

And I do believe the president when he says he wants to end the war. That’s not how you end it. So at the moment, I think we’re going to be disappointed. I don’t see anything happening that’s good.

America’s Role in the Conflict

ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Is the United States a neutral in the communications between and negotiations between Russia and Ukraine? Because I think it’s a co-belligerent with Ukraine.

COL. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR: Not only are we a co-belligerent, frankly, we’re responsible for the existence of this heinous regime. The hundreds of drones that struck a residential area in Moscow would not have flown anywhere were it not for us. I think that this travesty that we somehow or another are brokering something between Kiev and Moscow ought to be ended immediately.

We are mightily responsible for everything that’s happened in Ukraine. I think if you’re a Russian, you reasonably ask the following question. If they want good relations with us, if they want to repair the damage, why don’t they simply put an end to this regime in Kiev?

And we could. And we could also demand that elections be held as soon as possible to put in a new government. And we could ask the Organization of Security Cooperation in Europe to help with that and get rid of Zelensky and his crew. The fact that we’re not doing any of those things sends the opposite signal to the Russians. It means we’re not serious and we’re not sincere.

American Leverage with Russia

ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Do we have any leverage with the Russians whatsoever?

COL. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR: No, of course not. Remember, we’ve made this analogy before, but we probably ought to do it again, Judge. If there were a large military establishment force, 400, 500, 600, 700,000, whatever, sitting in Mexico, that was armed, trained, and equipped by the Chinese or the Russians or anybody, and its sole purpose was to attack the United States, to regain control of Southern Texas or Southern California or something, based on what happened many, many years ago, what would we do?

We would smash it. We would stop it. And we would not negotiate with it. It’s an existential threat. And we need to understand that. We have no leverage whatsoever. No one would have leverage over us in the case that we were destroying a threat in Mexico.

ANDREW NAPOLITANO: So are Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz and Steve Whitkoff on a fool’s errand?

COL. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR: Oh, they’re on Fantasy Island. There’s no question about it.

ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Worse than a fool’s errand, I guess. I don’t know what they really think they can accomplish.

COL. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR: I don’t think they’re going to accomplish much of anything. Although, you know, to their credit, I think the Russians will still be polite to them.

Putin’s Strategy and Patience

ANDREW NAPOLITANO: What is your view of President Putin’s methodical patience? I mean, he could have, I think you’ve told us this, if he wanted to, demolished the invaders in Kirsk. He could also demolish the government buildings in Kiev if he wanted to.

COL. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR: I think he’s going to work diligently to achieve the aims of his campaign, denazification, demilitarization, and hopefully set the stage for a neutral Ukraine that does not have NATO forces or any foreign forces on its soil. We should welcome that.