All Episodes
Previous Next
March 19, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
22:16
Prof. Gilbert Doctorow : Putin and Ceasefire.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Wednesday, March 19th, 2025.
Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us now.
Professor Doctorow, it's a pleasure.
Thank you.
Let's get right to the news of the morning, which is that the White House is claiming a significant breakthrough in the negotiations.
That took place between President Trump and President Putin, which appear to have resulted in an agreement by the Russians not to attack energy infrastructure for the Ukrainians.
We don't have any response from the Ukrainians yet, but before we talk about Zelensky and before we talk about the Europeans, is this a ceasefire, the way the White House wants us to believe?
No, we know very little about what was discussed from what Donald Trump has released.
And that's not surprising and nobody can blame him.
These discussions are still very sensitive.
The opponents to Trump, domestically and internationally, are extremely powerful and are looking for a fight.
So he will not tip his hand at this point.
It would be quite inappropriate.
It's also clear that the two gentlemen didn't spend two hours and 28 minutes discussing the halt of Russian attacks on the energy infrastructure in Ukraine.
What I'd like to point out is a remark that I haven't seen highlighted in mainstream, namely the remark made by Pieskov after the call was over, that the world is a lot safer.
Well, that's profound.
Do you know what he was talking about?
Did they discuss nuclear weapons?
I guess we don't know what they discussed other than Ukrainian infrastructure, energy infrastructure.
I don't think that the energy infrastructure took much time in their chat.
I'm sure that it was Trump trying to give a vision of what a reset with Russia would look like.
And it obviously was very appealing to the Russians.
The halt on attack on energy infrastructure was a gesture of goodwill, nothing more.
But it was necessary to support Trump's statements that progress is being made.
Of greater interest, of course, is the announcement that working groups have been assigned again that there will be further talks this Sunday in Saudi Arabia.
And that's with regard to progress on the, well, it's a merged issue of a ceasefire and the outcome of possible peace negotiations.
When is the last time an American president spoke directly with a Russian president?
Well, Joe Biden did.
This is back in December 2021.
And of course he had his...
He had his little summit with Putin in the spring of that year.
But the point is no one has spoken for two hours and 28 minutes on the phone.
I don't think any time.
This is a record.
And they had something to talk about.
I think it really was at the level of presidents talking about a new cooperative relationship.
Do we know if whatever they agreed to Resembles at all whatever Secretary of State Rubio and Ukrainian President Zelensky agreed to.
Oh, I think that's off the table.
That's a separate issue.
I would imagine what we're talking about, if I could just go straight to the point, we're talking about a new configuration of the United States and Russia waging war on Europe.
Well, that new configuration is what people like you and Doug McGregor and Larry Wilkerson and Jeff Sachs and John Mearsheimer and Scott Ritter and those of us who are decidedly not neocons have been pushing on the president since he was elected.
That grand reset, which I think you will agree with me, should involve China
Brazil and India, as well as Russia.
That grand reset of realism, recognizing the sovereignty
other countries and their legitimate security needs,
I agree completely, but let's go step by step.
The immediate task is to neutralize Europe.
The immediate task is to neutralize the Ukrainians, Zelensky and the others vying for power in Ukraine.
And on that, I think they could have had a good subject for discussion, because this is not an abstract issue, it's a concrete issue, which is intended by the Europeans and by Zelensky to sabotage the peace negotiations.
So I think the Russians and the Americans...
What do you think motivated President Putin to show up in Kursk in military garb and very publicly and ostentatiously – I've never seen him do this.
It reminds me of Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam in the mid-60s – very ostentatiously saying, let's get this over with.
And it's just about over with.
What motivated that?
Well, it's critical for the Russian public to understand that the Kursk adventure is coming to an immediate end.
That was held out as something to be done before any talks with the Ukrainians could take place.
And so Putin was finalizing that, letting his own public know that this is being done, and for that reason we are prepared to enter the talks.
What is the Kremlin view of President Trump's decision, if there is one, I know you monitor Russian media very effectively, Professor, of Donald Trump's decision to bomb the Houthis,
which resulted in the deaths of Yemen civilians?
Well, it's easier to bomb the Houthis than it is to bomb Tehran.
So this was a messaging.
Look, there are a lot of cynical things going on here.
And bombing the Houthis was one such cynical measure.
Lives were lost.
Civilian lives were lost.
This blood is on Trump's hands.
But I think he exculpates himself by saying that by his actions, he is avoiding much bigger bloodshed.
And I think that you have to look at everything that Trump is doing today from the perspective of He's prioritizing, he's managing his political strengths to achieve one overriding goal.
And that is a reset with Russia, which is a precondition for a new world order of the kind that you described a few minutes ago.
What does this say for the request that we know is coming to Donald Trump from Benjamin Netanyahu?
Well, he might say I'm thinking about it because it's too early for him to fully alienate Netanyahu and Netanyahu's backers in the States.
This is a war of great proportions going on between Trump, his domestic opponents, and his foreign opponents in Europe.
And he has to find points of leverage.
He cannot fight on all fronts.
It's quite enough that he's got these tariff wars going.
He cannot fight on all fronts.
And he has to find leverage.
And of course, the Israeli supporters are a very effective point of leverage and demonstration that, you know, boys, I'm not all bad.
I'm doing some things that you want very much.
So that is to have them at his back.
It makes it much easier for him to go into what is going to be a really struggle of enormous proportions with Starmer and Macron and Merz and Wanderleyen.
That is a hell of a task he has.
Well, what do you think those European leaders are thinking this morning after
read the Kremlin's version of the two and a half hour conversation about,
No, they're not there.
And practically speaking, Europe has made itself totally irrelevant.
There are some people who may appreciate that, but the ones you mentioned don't.
They will get it.
They think they have enormous leverage over Trump because of his domestic opposition, with whom they're all well connected, and because they overvalue themselves in the world order.
I think they're in for a rude awakening in the century.
What is the obligation of the Ukrainians in compliance with whatever Trump and Putin agree to?
Do they have to agree to stop attacking anything inside Russia?
I mean, a ceasefire, however limited it is, has got to be bilateral.
As to my understanding, it is bilateral.
And although some of the mainstream are speaking about this as something that Trump, that Putin will do, as I understand it, he gave orders to the military, immediately after the phone conversation, to stop all drone and aerial attacks on the infrastructure,
the energy infrastructure of Ukraine, I believe.
That Kiev has made the same promise.
But let's step back a bit, because everybody's talking about the 30-day unconditional ceasefire.
And that's not where this all started.
This started from Zelensky speaking about a 30-day partial ceasefire, which was precisely about things like this, against civilian infrastructure and against...
The free naval transit in the Black Sea.
That is what Zelensky proposed.
The Americans overrode that and made it much broader, so it would be more impressive.
And now it's been rolled back to where it started when Zelensky first proposed it.
So I think it's no question but that Zelensky agrees to this notion of no attacks on the Russian energy infrastructure.
It's not to say no attacks on Russia.
But not on the energy infrastructure, which they have been doing.
They were attacking refineries, oil depots, and so forth.
Why do you suppose, and do you see any connection, why do you suppose Donald Trump authorized Benjamin Netanyahu to resume the genocide in Gaza?
And do you see any connection between his communication with and agreement with President Putin?
And this dreadful unleashing of Netanyahu.
I think they're directly related.
And this is a point that I've had in correspondence with some of the readers of my essays.
Some people have been extremely outraged that I could speak rather calmly about the green light that Trump gave to Netanyahu.
Professor, Dr. Earl, you always speak calmly, no matter what we're talking about, which is one of your great assets.
Well, they're linked because, as I said, Trump is in a struggle of enormous consequence and great danger to himself.
And he has to have points of leverage.
There's no better point of leverage in the United States Congress than the Israeli lobby and that end of American foreign policy.
So with that at his back.
He can look like one of the boys, a continuator of American foreign policy, at the same time that his overreaching aim is to destroy the fundamentals of American foreign policy of the last 80 years.
Not with respect to Israel.
No, not yet.
But I would be very cautious in believing that his support for Netanyahu on this miserable, cowardly, and deadly attack in Gaza is anything more than
a temporary deal with the devil.
All right.
Well, here is his press secretary.
Chris, I'm going to guess this was yesterday or last night or very early this morning, defending, well, revealing the consultation with the Israelis and defending...
The Trump administration decision to unleash them.
The Trump administration and the White House were consulted by the Israelis on their attacks in Gaza tonight.
And as President Trump has made it clear, Hamas, the Houthis, Iran, all those who seek to terrorize not just Israel, but also the United States of America, will see a price to pay.
All hell will break loose.
And all of the terrorists in the Middle East, again, the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iranian-backed Now,
she's known for her hyperbole, but it doesn't sound like she's representing or speaking on behalf of somebody who's about to say to Netanyahu, enough is enough.
He's not prepared to do that today.
He needs Netanyahu's supporters on Capitol Hill.
He needs Netanyahu's supporters on Capitol Hill in your theory, which is very rational in my view, in order to do the reset with Russia, China, India, and Brazil.
Exactly.
This is a fascinating observation.
It pains me that...
Human beings' lives can be sacrificed like this.
Yemen lives sacrificed for Iran and now 400 civilians killed by the IDF yesterday.
There is no moral, legal, or even military justification for that whatsoever.
And everybody acts like it's a normal thing for the Israelis to do.
Why aren't people furious about it?
I agree with you on all moral, legal issues.
At the same time, there is every political reason to do it.
And I think that people misjudge Trump because he's a businessman.
He's a transactional operator.
He has no experience in international affairs.
I think they're dead wrong.
I think that Trump is a very political animal, probably the most effective political animal we've had in the Oval Office since Lyndon Johnson.
He trades IOUs.
He uses threats freely.
And with some effect.
I made the remark that his political strength was demonstrated by his getting every single one of his nominees for cabinet-level posts through the nominating process.
One of my readers, who is better briefed in history than I am, American history, commented that 285 years of American nominations, only nine point nominees were ever rejected by the Senate.
However, that's a very good point, and I have to admit it.
Nonetheless, there weren't candidates like the ones that Trump put up.
I don't think we've had a history of candidates being put up for the Senate process who were openly saying that they would use a wrecking ball against institutions and policies.
Have we ever had a Secretary of Health and
Human Services Balance off your calmness with
Scott Ritter's anger over Trump bombing the Yehudis and threats to Iran.
It's a minute and a half long, but he's over the top and, in my view, wonderful, but I'd love you to comment on it.
Chris, get ready.
Chris, cut number one.
Because Donald Trump ordered a bomb that blows up with greater explosive force than the bomb that was dropped under Biden.
Trump is an idiot.
I hate to say that, and my wife is going to be very mad at me for saying this, but this is the kind of stupidity that a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said, Mr. President, stop.
Cease and desist.
The Secretary of Defense has to do an intervention and say, please don't do this.
You are making us look stupid.
You're putting us in a bad situation.
And it's unbecoming of the Commander-in-Chief to speak in this fashion about conflict when American lives are on the line.
Mr. President, shut up.
And that's what he needs to do.
Shut up.
If you're going to drop bombs, drop bombs.
But quit pretending that because you're Donald Trump, the earth shakes greater because you dropped the damn bomb than somebody else.
The bomb blows up.
And you know who doesn't care?
The hootie.
All you can do is drop bombs.
And your bombs won't stop them from firing missiles.
And then you want to now threaten the Iranian people the same way.
It isn't going to work, Mr. President.
And what's going to happen are one of two things.
You're going to look foolish because you're going to have to back down when your Secretary of Defense says, we can't escalate any further without putting 700,000 boots on the ground.
That's a major invasion that will cause the entire region to blow up.
Oil prices will spin out of control and your economy will crash.
And you're finished, Mr. President.
You're done.
Everything you're trying to do, the American people will not tolerate $120 oil.
Because it can't, economically.
All the changes you're making are predicated upon a foundation of economic stability, which will not be here if you throw oil security, energy security out the window by going to war with Iran.
Stop it!
What do you think, Professor Comness?
I think he's very excitable.
My question in response, cynical as it is.
Ugly as it is on a moral and legal basis, as you properly remarked.
The question is, what do you want?
Do you want to be vaporized in World War III?
Or do you want to let this sort of nonsense go on that Trump is doing to show that he's one of the big boys continuator of certain elements of American foreign policy?
I think this is unfortunately a price that has to be paid.
For you and me and Scott Ritter not to be vaporized.
Understood and deeply appreciated.
And it brings us back to where we started.
They talked for two hours and 28 minutes yesterday, probably five minutes on the let's stop bombing energy infrastructure and the rest was on these huge issues, the last of which you just alluded to.
Nobody wants the world to be vaporized.
Agreed?
Agreed.
Professor Doctor, a pleasure, my dear friend.
And thank you for listening to my froggy voice.
I'm at the tail end of a late winter cold.
It'll go away soon.
And your time and your thoughts are much appreciated.
I look forward already to chatting with you next week.
Well, thanks for having me.
Of course.
And coming up later today at 11 o 'clock this morning on all of this, Colonel Douglas McGregor at one this afternoon.
On all of this, Pepe Escobar.
At 3 o 'clock this afternoon on all of this, Phil Giraldi.
▲
Export Selection