All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 24, 2024 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
30:45
Dr. Gilbert Doctorow : Putin, Xi, and BRICS
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Thursday, October 24th, 2024.
Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us now from Brussels.
Professor Doctorow, it's a pleasure, my dear friend.
Thank you for joining us.
Before I ask you about the latest from the Kremlin and your view on the North Korean troops and whether they're there or not there.
I want to ask you a few questions about the Middle East from a Kremlin lens.
How, if at all, does the Kremlin view what I and guests on this show perceive as genocide in Gaza perpetrated by the Netanyahu government?
Well, I don't think we look so much for direct statements from Mr. Putin.
He's rather circumspect.
Press Secretary Peskov.
But the panel shows that are close to the Kremlin, that is either the Great Game or Vladimir Solovyov, they speak very openly, and you may take their remarks as representing those of the inner circle in the Kremlin.
And that is, of course, condemning the savagery that's being perpetrated by Israel in the region, the deaths.
Both in Gaza and in Lebanon.
These are highlighted.
They are called out the same way as you or I or other people of conscience are calling it out in the West.
So that is unequivocal.
Exactly what Russia is doing about it is something less easy to fathom.
There are many imponderables here.
We know, for example, in that leaked document about Israeli war plans, they were planning to fly in over Syria and to launch missiles on Iran from inside the Iraqi border.
The question you would ask is, why doesn't Syria have adequate air defense?
This is an imponderable, certainly within the power of Russia to deliver it, just as it wasn't clear why, after the Russians more or less helped Damascus to subdue the insurgents that had received U.S. support during 2015 to 2017.
Why didn't they follow that up with sufficient defenses for Syria?
Why did they allow Israeli jets to attack what were called Hezbollah arms caches or whatever, or Hamas arms caches in Syria?
This doesn't add up.
There's a very complex geometry here, which I don't think any of us fully fathoms.
How many Russian troops are in Syria?
I don't think the numbers are very big.
Remember, they have two bases in Syria.
They have an air base.
And there have been Israeli strikes not far from the airbase, which caused a lot of discussion in the chattering classes in Moscow.
And they have an army base.
But I don't think a great many men are involved.
The equipment is there, particularly the I'm sorry, they have a naval base.
And that's which is used for provisioning or They haven't used this in a way that you would expect to defend Assyria.
They've used it only to defend themselves and their interest in Eastern Mediterranean.
This is a bit perplexing.
At the same time, my colleagues as you know very well, because you interview some of them, they speak about Russian assistance, military assistance, military equipment, being shipped in to help the Yemenis, to help Hezbollah, and to help Iran.
But these are all unofficial statements.
How accurate they are, how precise.
Any estimates of a quantity or quality may be, we can't say.
So the Kremlin is intentionally very quiet about its current activities to prop up its allies and protégés in West Asia.
Is it not true?
That the Russians have provided substantial, extensive, expensive Russian-manned anti-missile gear, for lack of a better word, to the Iranians?
Well, you're speaking about the S-400s.
Yes.
It is possible.
It is likely.
But it is not officially recognized.
Interesting.
Surely the Russians, surely the Kremlin, Well, I subscribe very much to interpretation on these relations between Russia
and Iran that has been put forward, I believe, on your program.
Oh, I think we lost you, Professor.
All right, we're going to do our best to bring Professor Doctora back.
Chris, are we staying on the same link?
Yes, we are.
Okay.
So I plan to speak to Professor Dr. Osun as he gets back here, of course, about the rumors of North Korean troops in Russia, rumors that seem to be perpetuated by President Zelensky himself.
It's a fascinating subject matter.
We discussed it briefly with Tony Schaefer when he was on earlier this morning.
I also plan to talk to Professor Dr. Osun.
Okay, well, anyway.
You were talking, I believe, about the nature and extent of Russian support for defensive mechanisms in Iran, anticipating an assault from Israel.
Yes, but I was about to say that I subscribe to what Ray McGovern has otherwise been saying, that Russia is holding back.
Iran is not giving a blank check, which signing that mutual defense conditions within their comprehensive cooperation treaty would be providing to Iran.
And that is being done in the expectation that the United States is similarly restraining.
And if we may take as proof of that restraint the leak of these secret Israeli documents on the war plans and how they intended to attack Iran.
So it is quite possible that some kind of unofficial coordination is going on between what the United States is doing with Israel and Russia is doing with Iran.
Nonetheless, Iran...
And what that means is more or less being spelled out for the general public in these days as a two-tier system of BRICS membership.
Daesh Association as partners is being put into place and we expect this before the end of the BRICS summit an announcement will be made on which countries are going to be in which category.
The largest number of applicant members for BRICS will be in the second lesser category of partners rather than full members.
Before we get to Brexit, I just have one or two more questions about the Middle East.
Does the Kremlin comment, or has it commented, on the telegram leak of documents?
Because one of those documents is the first time we have seen in an official American document, albeit a top-secret one that the Americans never expected would be revealed.
The casual reference to and utter recognition of Israel's nuclear weapons program.
There has been very little comment in Russian news, in Russian talk shows representing the chattering classes.
The leak as such has gotten much less attention in Russia than it has in Western media.
It seems as though if the documents are accurate, and all the people on this show, academics like you, ex-military, ex-intel, have indicated that the documents are accurate and real, that they were not a subterfuge intended by whoever leaked it and whoever prepared them to give the Iranians a false report.
It's obvious Israel will change its plans now, but it seems obvious that Israel is planning a significant attack on Iran.
Does the Kremlin still expect to restrain Iran in the light of a significant Israeli attack, one, for example, that would attempt to destroy Iran's nuclear capability, whether for domestic purposes or for weapons?
Weapons.
One that might impair Iran's oil, which would be insane economically, but who knows what Netanyahu will do.
One that might impair Iran's oil refinery.
one that might kill Iran's senior leadership, which is the custom and habit of the IDF.
This all assumes that Israel would be committed to do it.
And I think that what we've just discussed a moment ago suggests that there is a restraining force being exercised by Washington, by the Pentagon, or whoever authorized and carried out the leaks that we're talking about.
and this For Russia, it's extremely important, of course.
Will Israel be permitted or enabled to carry out these devastating attacks?
And Russia surely has contingency plans for that.
But it takes us back, I don't want to be a one-note orchestra here, but it takes us back to this question of the head and the tail of the dog.
And I would say that, to everyone's surprise, It looks like the head of the dog is sitting in Washington, and that head decided against letting the tail wag it.
But there's more to that issue, and I'd just like to take one moment to explain why I made this an important issue from the beginning.
Sure.
Because if Israel is a proxy and proxies are expendable, if we are speaking of an American foreign policy that corresponds to The situation where Israel would be controlling Washington would be a perfect scenario for fatality for Israel.
And it would be sacrifice thrown under the bus for the furtherance of American interests.
It is Washington that is calling the shots and not Israel.
Then I think Israel's future is safer.
Interesting.
Are there North Korean troops in Russia?
Most likely, yes.
The numbers vary according to which newspaper or media outlet you're looking at in the West.
Between 3,000, I think that was a number in a lead article in Financial Times today, also rumored 12,000.
But I'd like to look at this in a broader context.
It's one of these knives that cuts two ways, or swords that cuts two ways.
Everyone's looking at it.
From the standpoint of, well, this shows that the Russians really need help, or the Russians really don't need that much help, because how much can you expect from 3,000 infantry, even if they're highly skilled?
I think that more likely it's what you hear in a slip of the tongue on Russian television, that the exercise is to train the North Koreans, not to save Russia and Kursk.
North Korea hasn't been an open battle for some time.
Russia is in the middle of it.
If Russia is providing modern equipment to the North Koreans, as is being alleged by those who are banging the drum, but as South Korea, Japan, how horrible it is that Russia is supplying advanced weapons, I think it's logical that the North Koreans would be in Russia, in the war zone, to actually Try out these in war conditions and learn how they work and learn how to become effective.
So I think the exercise would be more likely directed towards training North Koreans than in saving the Russians from the devastating effects of the Ukrainian invasion of Korsk.
And there's the other side of it, still more important.
The message to the United States, to Japan, and to South Korea, that if they want to heat up, They will find themselves against Russians in North Korea.
Very interesting.
Is it the view of the Kremlin, as far as you're able to deduce it, that Ukraine is on its last leg?
I don't think it's seen that way, because that would be to misjudge what the war is about.
I was very surprised.
The Western media is changing.
The editorial board of the Financial Times are the most vicious promoters of neocon ideas.
And yet, in today's issue, they feature an article by Ivan Khraschev, which itself is very interesting, because Khraschev, to my knowledge, was one of these Young journalists who were put on the payroll of George Soros.
Soros hired a whole group of journalists.
He set up the equivalent to the United States.
He has an article in today's Financial Times, a featured article in which he's explaining that the West is looking in the mirror, the West is not listening or interested in what Russia is really saying, that Putin today is as different from Putin in December 2021 as Stalin was in 1944 compared to Stalin in 1940.
That there have been very significant changes.
And most importantly, a direct answer to your question, we're speaking about Russia viewing the war as a war against the collective West and against NATO, not a war against Ukraine.
Therefore, to say, when will the war be over?
It'll be over when there are security arrangements revised in the spirit that Russia demanded in December 2021.
Do you think that the neocons in America recognize that Ukraine, no matter what kind of support we give, it just can't hold out much longer?
They don't have the manpower.
I don't know that they're aware of it because Russia has been playing this very slowly.
Even the mop-up operation now in Kursk is not being rushed.
They are not being pushed.
They are doing it systematically at least cost to themselves in manpower.
So it is easy for those who don't want to see the writing on the wall not to see it because of the way the Russians are playing their game.
Nonetheless, there are surely people in Washington, and many of them no doubt in the Pentagon, who understand perfectly well how wars are prosecuted and how wars are lost.
And who understand that Ukraine is on its last legs.
But as I say, the war will be over only when there is some kind of a settlement with the United States and NATO, and not just a settlement with whoever happens to be put in charge in Kiev when it comes to negotiate, because surely it will not be Zelensky who leads the negotiations.
If he tries to, he'll be strung up from the nearest lamppost.
How significant?
Economically and geopolitically, is the BRICS meeting in Kazan going on as we speak, Professor?
The BRICS meeting is enormously important in the financial world, and after all, the G7 is, yes, it's the governing board of the world, but primarily for economic.
For financial matters, for control of the international institutions like the World Trade Organization, the IMF, the World Bank.
The policies governing these institutions are made by the G7.
Now, BRICS is an alternative to that world order.
And it is evolving in a very significant way, as announced by President Putin in his address to the expanded BRICS, that is to all heads of government who came to Kazan.
They had a special banquet last night, and Putin made some remarks that are really worth paying attention to.
He said he set out the initiatives that have already been introduced and begun to be implemented.
Under the Russian presidency of BRICS, and these include such things as establishing a grain bourse or exchange, similar to the Chicago exchange for grain, setting up a gold exchange and silver exchange, similar to what you have in the United States or in London.
That is to say, commodities exchanges, which have been totally dominated by the West and allowing speculation, serving Western interests, will be Facing direct competition from BRICS institutions doing the same service, but not open to speculation or to political pressures on other countries.
That's a big area of change.
As to currency, everybody expected that the decision on a BRICS currency, well, there isn't going to be one.
But what they are going to do is continue their work.
And probably this will be implemented rather quickly because there are prototypes, both in Russia and in China, for a SWIFT equivalent messaging service for all banks participating in it, whereby the US-controlled, Belgian-based SWIFT will be not used.
Similarly, they're going to put in place a method.
of handling disbalances in the commercial exchanges that they do state to state using national currencies.
These are world-changing institutional changes.
They are not a military alliance, but they are of key importance for global governance.
Will BRICS soon have two I's in it?
Will it be B-R-I-I-C-S, the second I being Iran?
Well, however we spell the acronym, the reality is that there's now nine full numbers.
And as I mentioned in passing, The inner side is already made.
I think they will be announcing some new members, memberships being offered to key Southeast Asian countries.
As we know, the big expansion last year was in Northeast Africa and West Asia.
So they have a big And Malaysia is certain to be admitted to BRICS in short order.
So there will be a bigger number than nine, but 30 members are not going to become full BRICS members.
just a handful of them will, and the rest will be partners.
And that is to avoid
It took some time to forge that consensus, and they don't want to postpone progress in Briggs by having to tame BRICS does have its eyes on a NATO member which has its eyes on BRICS and that is of course Turkey.
Might any other NATO members, Hungary comes to mind, be interested in BRICS and might BRICS be interested in them and is it even conceivable that a country could be in both NATO and BRICS at the same time?
Depends which BRICS you mean.
If the inner circle, I think, is doubtful.
For the partner countries, why not?
I think it's to Russia's interest, and the interest of its partners in BRICS, to overlook the Turkish membership in NATO in order to weaken the American global position and its NATO position, since Turkey is the second largest.
Army within NATO.
And to prepare the way for Turkey to be thrown out of NATO, which is more likely than Turkey quitting NATO.
This is likely.
Mr. Erdogan is not greatly trusted in Moscow.
They know he's playing a double game.
They don't particularly mind that, so long as he's giving them a lot of things that they need and want.
But looking at the BRICS overall and where it's headed, I think BRICS will be extremely important as changing the balance of voting within all international institutions, starting with the General Assembly of the United Nations, extending to the Olympics committees,
extending to, in all directions of multinational organizations, BRICS will form a solid block to prevent The continued domination by threat, by blackmail, and by blandishments that America exercises in these institutions today.
Does BRICS, or do the powers behind BRICS, I guess that's President Putin and President Xi primarily, seek to replace We're losing you again.
There he is.
Do the power brokers in BRICS, as I'll describe them, President Xi and President Putin, ultimately want to replace the U.S. dollar as the standard currency?
I think replacing...
the developing countries of the world, and the minor players in the world.
As it presently has.
Replaced?
No, because they will not introduce their own currency.
But they will reduce the volume of trade denominated in dollars, the commercial information which America enjoys because so much of what world commerce passes through its banks and is susceptible to interception by U.S. intelligence.
These advantages We're going to play a clip from President Putin.
This is at the earliest part of BRICS, so it's four days old.
But my question will be to you after you listen to this, who is his audience?
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.
Rarely see him smile, but he's happy to be saying that.
Who was that intended for?
Janet Yellen?
I think clearly, yes.
This is to Washington.
It is a direct pushback.
Look, when you have the secretary or the press secretary of the White House saying what she did, that BRICS is insignificant, not worthy of comment, this was just before the event started, you can understand that Mr. Putin is delighted.
To push back and to say, my goodness, you really misunderstand.
We are vastly more important than you are.
And nonetheless, I have to say that Mr. Putin has also exaggerated the importance of BRICS.
He has said from the outset, just before the meetings began, that BRICS countries have risen from 1992 to 2023 in such a way.
Yes, BRICS countries taken one by one have, but BRICS as a club.
It was not responsible for this.
The single biggest factor in BRICS countries rising in their share of global GDP from 17% in 1993 to 37% in 2023 was the rise of China, which was unrelated to the creation of BRICS in 2009.
So, to be sure, the impact of BRICS on the globe, on the dollar and so on, is only beginning.
But as the BRICS has had to receive global news attention as soon as she and Modi touched down in Kazan, despite all of the wishes or ill wishes coming from Washington, Berlin and London.
So BRICS is going its own road to global significance and to becoming a rival to the G7.
In how financial affairs, which finally are decisive in world affairs, are handled.
Professor Doctorow, a pleasure, my dear friend.
Thank you for allowing me to take you from the Middle East to Ukraine to Kazan.
But we very much appreciate all of your thoughts and analysis, and I personally appreciate you letting me pick your very fertile brain.
Much appreciated.
I hope you'll come back and visit with us next week, wherever you might be.
That's very kind of you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Professor.
All the best.
Coming up later today, if some of you are wondering why you see judging freedom and copyright on the screen from time to time, it's because we recently discovered that some folks are stealing our content, changing the background.
And offering it as their own.
This is, of course, a violation of the copyright law and it's a violation of the agreement with YouTube.
They're doing it anyway and YouTube is cooperating with us in stopping this.
But it's easier to stop it if we embed into our product.
A reminder that what we do is copyrighted.
▲
Export Selection