All Episodes
Previous Next
April 17, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
23:01
Prof. Gilbert Doctorow : Germany and May 9th.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Thursday, April 17th, 2025.
Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us now.
Professor Doctorow, welcome here.
You have a fascinating piece out about Germany and May 9th and the significance of all of it.
But before we get there, and we will, a couple of other questions.
So you have a feeling...
From your position in Brussels, that the neocons around President Trump are ascendant.
We have a feeling here in Brussels that the neocons, domestic neocons in Europe, are ascendant also.
So the problem is not just the Washington issue, but if you meant by the neocons, the hardliner.
People within Trump's circle, that is Rubio and Kellogg.
And yes, the Russians are certainly aware of that.
I'm aware of that.
But to say their ascendant, I think, is an exaggeration.
The problems that we see that the Russians have identified very clearly in the last few days is Trump's ability and willingness to do what is necessary to put through his agenda.
I think a lot of people here were struck by his wobbling and by his backtracking on his chaotically introduced tariffs that put in question his ability to negotiate.
Well, back to the neocons, and maybe Ascendant is too strong a word.
The Wall Street Journal reports that they have his ear.
They were reluctant to have his ear in promoting their neocon ways until recently.
Max Blumenthal will be on shortly after you reports that the dismissals at the Pentagon, which have shaken it up mightily, were caused by...
A leak to the New York Times of the neocons being ascendant and breaking with the America Firsters and that, shockingly, Secretary Hegseth was not among the neocons,
that he was urging the President to tell Prime Minister Netanyahu not to attack Iran.
I don't want to get too into the weeds, but...
Is Donald Trump perceived in Europe as being on both sides of these issues, a man of peace and a man of war at the same time?
Oh, very definitely.
There's a lot of confusion, and there's reason for the confusion.
As I mentioned a moment ago, his wobbling has caused a lot of uncertainty about where he really stands and how tough he's going to fight.
For the initiatives that he rolled out in the first days of his presidency.
That remains the case.
That is true in Europe, for sure.
Look, there are all indications that he's backing away from NATO.
And then, was it yesterday or the day before, there's the announcement that, after all, America is sending 5,000 troops to the new, forthcoming NATO exercises.
So whether it is neocons who are influencing him or other factors, he is not pursuing a clearly defined policy and he reverses himself, which is not good for him and not good for his eventual
success.
As you read the American neocons, do they want the war in Ukraine to end or they want it to continue?
Oh, they want it to continue.
this they are definitely the natural allies of the war.
The Europeans, who have their own reasons for wanting the war to continue because they are in the ascendant, they have staked their careers on this, and they are looking for the hostile Russia as a unifying factor in an otherwise crumbling European Union.
You and almost everyone on this show,
Have been very critical of Sir Keir Stormer and French President Macron in their efforts to cobble together.
This is a totally discredited Bush-Cheney phrase, but why they're using it, I don't know.
Coalition of the Willing.
Is a new partner about to join that effort?
Coming from Berlin.
Join the effort?
I'm not sure that is the proper way to look at it.
These two, they also have their own competition.
Who is going to be the top dog?
Who is the one who is going to be the most important defense authority in Europe?
That is Starmer and Macron.
They are vying, they're competing for that title.
At the same time, the German Incoming chancellor is not making common cause with them.
He is in the same competitive situation, trying to position Germany and himself as the leaders, the dominant force in Europe's coming defense.
He's doing it by building on the very aggressive, belligerent statements towards Russia that he used as part of his electoral campaign.
You have referred to Frederick Mertz, and I quote, as the most dangerous German leader since Adolf Hitler.
A very, very serious statement.
What did you mean by that, and why did you say it?
Well, first of all, I don't think he had too much competition for that role.
Okay. Look at who he's replacing.
Look at who he's succeeding.
A person can barely get words out of his mouth.
Go ahead.
Yes, he had mealy-mouthed people who have put Germany in risky positions.
And here he is, by his belligerence towards Russia, and by his obvious willingness to take on risks that his predecessor, or soon-to-be predecessor, Schultz refused to take on.
Namely, giving the Ukrainians the cruise missiles that they have longed for.
This is the Taurus, which is an air-launched missile that the Russians have little or no experience combating.
So at the outset, should it be in the hands of the Ukrainians, it could indeed do some damage where the previous.
Long-range missiles either coming from the States or mostly from Britain and France, the Scalp and the Storm Shadow.
The Russians mastered those, found ways of neutralizing them.
But the Taurus could be dangerous.
And just speaking about sending Taurus to Ukraine, the numbers, let's go to the numbers.
Germany has 600 of these in stock.
What's being discussed is shipping 160.
Shipping them is only the beginning of the task.
The reason why, as we all know, the reason why Schultz refused to give the towers to Ukraine was his knowledge from leaked conversations between senior German Air Force officers that this product was usable Only if it were programmed and controlled by the German manufacturer and German personnel.
And that would expose Germany to the charges of being a co-belligerent.
So who refused?
Mr. Metz is ignoring this completely.
I mean, does he want a war with Russia?
Can Germany afford the consequences of becoming a co-belligerent?
I mean, the United States is already a co-belligerent.
And the Russians have been extremely restrained.
Under international law, I hate to say this, the Russians could attack Miami if they wanted.
But doesn't Mertz fear the consequence of becoming a co-belligerent?
Well, the risks have changed over time.
The coming to power of Donald Trump and the new doubts about the United States' willingness.
To defend its NATO allies.
That changes the equation.
And frankly, it is stunning that Merckx doesn't recognize this.
As you've just mentioned, the Russians had the legal basis for attacking the United States in response to its co-belligerent status, its direct intervention in the Ukraine war by the intelligence.
And by the programming of its missiles that it has done for Kiev.
Now, the situation presently is that Germany, by supplying such equipment and necessarily providing the hands-on control of this equipment of its own officers and manufacturers, would be taking the risk of a Russian counter-strike on Germany itself.
And the notion that the Article 5 Would be invoked and would be responded to positively is a very risky proposition today.
Somehow Merz has not seen that.
So he is waving a red flag.
It gets worse.
Not just would they supply these 160 towers to Ukraine, but they are recommending that Ukraine use this to target the Kerch Bridge.
That is the bridge.
That links mainland Russia with the peninsula of Crimea.
That's a billion dollar range.
Yes. And other vital infrastructure that supports the Russian logistics for the war, saying this could change the dynamics of the war in Ukraine's favor.
That he says this publicly is remarkable.
That his father fought Back to Stormer and Macron.
Do they have the financial resources?
To achieve what they're trying to put together.
The coalition of the willing would only make sense from their perspective if there were military assets involved.
Do they have them?
It would make sense if they had willing.
Apparently they don't have any willing other than the two of them.
The British have no military of which to speak.
I'm not familiar with what the French have.
You can educate us.
But where are they going with this?
I suppose we have to add the Princess von der Leyen to all of this.
She doesn't have a military either, but she'd love nothing more than to be, correct me if I'm wrong, Professor, the Commander-in-Chief of the European armies, wouldn't she?
Well, she's a cheerleader, but the two of them are not completely alone.
They have three other European member states that have joined the Coalition of the Ruin.
Regrettably, For military value, when you add all three together, you come up with zero.
I'm speaking about the three Baltic states.
The total population of all three of them is probably under 4 million or closer to 5 million, but their armies are negligible.
We're speaking about the equivalent of police forces.
They have nothing to contribute.
Where is it going to go then?
Nowhere. The effort to assemble the coalition of the willing, they're going to fall flat on their faces.
Maybe that's why President Macron is talking about recognizing a Palestinian state, getting the public's mind off of whatever he's trying to accomplish in Ukraine.
Well, he has his own ambitions still in Ukraine.
And the ambitions of Macron...
To a lesser extent, those of Starmer are focused on one city.
The city is Odessa.
And as for the French, it is a certain nostalgia.
Let's remember that the first mayor of the city of Odessa in the late 18th century was a certain Duc de Richelieu, a French duc.
And there's a monument to him in downtown Odessa.
So there is a...
There's a certain claim that the French have for being protectors, shall we say, of Odessa.
For the British, it's much more practical.
Odessa is a staging ground for their activities in the Black Sea, and it is close, if you look at that, in direct line to the Crimean Peninsula.
So for their military purposes, to cause havoc in the Russian mold.
Crimea, Odessa has great importance.
Of course, it's also the principal port, commercial activities of Ukraine.
So this is the city in Ukraine which they have focused their attention on.
As to the coalition of the willing, that is largely posturing, and it would be to cover up any The operation that they would take focused on Odessa.
Odessa is also conveniently close to the Romanian border.
So it is conceivable that without talking about peacekeepers over the whole thousand kilometer long line of engagement, these two powers of France and Britain could concentrate their efforts on one city for which they probably have sufficient.
Manpower and equipment.
That is the city being Odessa.
Let me ask you about Germany.
Has the Nord Stream pipeline been repaired?
No. Well, there are two pipelines.
The one that is still almost usable, that is the pipeline 2, which was ready to be put into service and then was...
Refused acceptance by the Germans.
It has some problems.
You can't keep a pipeline like this inactive for two, three years with no maintenance, but to restart it is probably an easy matter.
The first pipeline, the one that was blown up, also was salvageable, but it will take considerably bigger investment and time to restore it.
The issue, of course, is that the Germans remain and under Merz are likely to remain vehemently opposed to taking Russian gas, even if it's essential for their economy to recover.
Very interesting.
I have that image in my mind of Chancellor Scholz standing blithely, meekly next to President Biden.
As Biden says, we'll take care of the Nord Stream pipeline.
He obviously knew what was going on.
Switching gears, the Kellogg plan.
The plan put forth by General Kellogg.
It's hard to imagine this was not run past Donald Trump.
It's harder to imagine that Trump approved of it.
Nevertheless, the plan would divide Ukraine sort of the way Germany was divided at
end of World War II among the Allies into three or four protectorates.
How was this viewed?
In Europe, I can't say.
I don't think they've given too much attention to General Kellogg.
And still, it's something that's hanging in the air.
It doesn't have the backing of Donald Trump, so it's not clear where it's headed.
I will say something about how the Russians feel, probably more positively.
The thing about, in fact, when I've written about this Kellogg plan versus the position of Steve Witkoff, I got a comment saying, well, what's the difference between them after all?
Because both parties are recognizing Russian possession of the four obelists that is now occupied largely in eastern Ukraine plus Crimea.
In that sense, both Kellogg and And Witkoff are saying the same thing.
But Putin would never agree to American troops in western Ukraine, would he?
No, no.
The issue of the troops and the real difference between Witkoff and Kellogg is over what about the rest of Ukraine?
That Kellogg, as we know, is speaking about western troops in the...
Westernmost part of Ukraine, the center of Ukraine being a kind of rump state, a neutral state of, presumably neutral state of Ukraine, and the Russians owning the eastern part.
Nonetheless, I want to look at this from, take a step back.
They are talking, Witkoff and Kellogg, are talking about the endgame.
Let's remember that when Trump rolled out his initiative, it was only about a ceasefire.
And the Russians were complaining, wait a minute, this doesn't count.
Where is the endgame?
So the Americans have taken on board, whether it's Kellogg as a hardliner together with Rubio, or it is Steve Witkoff as the soft guy who is taking on board and accepting Russia's basic demands.
They all are dealing with the endgame, not with the ceasefire.
Now, we're approaching the deadline that Donald Trump gave for acceptance of the ceasefire, and that is the 20th of April.
The point I want to make here is that the Russians are being blamed for the delays.
I think this is dead wrong.
I think the blame for the delays is on the desk of Donald Trump.
He doesn't have the guts so far to do what's necessary for the agreements to be reached.
Namely, He has not taken on Europe.
Without Europe being challenged and put in its place, without their understanding who's who, if the boss is the United States, and don't have any mistake about it, without that happening, there will be neither a ceasefire nor a peace treaty that is brokered by Trump.
And so far, he shows no sign of taking on Europe.
Does the Kellogg Plan mention NATO?
NATO, no.
NATO member states, yes.
I don't think he would in any way challenge the remarks that Donald Trump made soon after taking office that the United States will not provide Article 5 coverage for any Western European military that is put into Ukraine under the name of peacekeepers or whatever.
So, no, he wouldn't overrule that.
But what kind of an administration listens to Steve Witkoff in one ear and Lindsey Graham in the other?
Donald Trump is a Catholic in more than one sense, and he's listening to all sides, and he's leaving everybody guessing.
This can only carry you so far, and I think he's running at the outer limits of where this negotiating tactic works.
And coming up to the point where it stops working.
If he cannot make a decision and take the consequences, then he's going to lose on all fronts.
Professor Doctorow, a pleasure, my dear friend.
Thank you for your analysis.
Safe travels.
Happy Easter, and we look forward to seeing you next week.
Happy Easter to all of you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm coming up later today at 11 o'clock this morning with some explosive information about an American being kicked out of the United States.
Oops, could ICE have made a mistake on this one?
▲
Export Selection