All Episodes
May 29, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
30:31
Prof. Gilbert Doctorow : How Precarious Is Ukraine?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Thursday, May 29th, 2025.
Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us in just a moment on just how dire is the situation in Ukraine.
But first this.
While the markets are giving us whiplash, have you seen the price of gold?
It's soaring!
In the past 12 months, gold has risen to more than $3,000 an ounce.
I'm so glad I bought my gold.
It's not too late for you to buy yours.
The same experts that predicted gold at $3,200 an ounce now predict gold at $4,500 or more in the next year.
What's driving the price higher?
Paper currencies.
All around the world, they are falling in value.
Big money is in panic as falling currencies shrink the value of their paper wealth.
That's why big banks and billionaires are buying gold in record amounts.
As long as paper money keeps falling, they'll keep buying and gold will keep rising.
So do what I did.
Call my friends at Lear Capital.
You'll have a great conversation and they'll send you very helpful information.
Learn how you can store gold in your IRA tax and penalty-free or have it sent directly to your doorstep.
There's zero pressure to buy and you have a 100% risk-free purchase guarantee.
It's time to see if gold is right for you.
Call 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com and tell them your friend the judge sent you.
Professor Doctorow, welcome here, my dear friend.
Congratulations on your new book, War Diaries, which of course we will discuss at some point during our interview today.
I do want to start with the latest out of Germany.
Has the decision of Chancellor Mertz to deliver Taurus missiles to Ukraine without geographical limits Definitely, yes.
I'd say the language has changed a little bit in the last week or two.
Now, what Mr. Lavrov said most recently about Merz is a hair's breadth away from calling him a Nazi.
Lavrov said that like Hitler, Merz is doing this and that.
Like Hitler, it means that he's already associating.
Mr. Merz with the Hitler heritage or legacy.
That is a dramatic change in the language coming out of the Kremlin.
The Russians have said very plainly that if Merz proceeds with this, and the last news, updated news, is that they probably have already shipped the missile to Kiev.
When Merz said yesterday that it could be as soon as a few weeks from now, Well, judging by the last three years, we know that when statements like that are made, the shipments have been made weeks before, so that we may assume that this missile is already in the possession of the Ukrainians.
And for the Russians, that is war.
What do you expect President Putin to do about it?
I mean, Prime Minister Lavrov's words are strong, but they're just words.
I don't mean that to demean him.
As you know, I'm very fond of him personally and professionally.
But what do you think President Putin will do?
I don't think that President Putin has any margin for his own opinions on this matter.
The latest opinion polls in Russia show that he has gone up to an 82% approval rating.
Wow.
But let's not deceive ourselves.
The popular mood in Russia has changed.
Whereas some of my peers and colleagues were saying as long ago as two years ago that the Russian general staff didn't like the "go slowly" approach, softly, softly approached Mr. Putin and wanted something more dramatic.
I didn't put much credence in what they think or say privately because the military is wholly under the control of civilian rule in Russia.
The indications, and this even came up in recent talk show programs from Moscow, that the popular mood has changed.
And people are weary of this Khosrow approach.
I don't believe that Mr. Putin would stay in power if he failed to respond to attacks by the Ukrainians using the Taurus missile.
I know your field is not military tactics, but how far can these Taurus missiles reach?
Can they reach Moscow?
Not quite, but the objective that Mr. Merz himself made when he first discussed shipping them was To do something dramatic, something that will humiliate Moscow and would put Russia in an impossible position, the regime in an impossible position, namely to destroy the Crimean Bridge.
And for that purpose, the German missile is much more effective than the shorter-range missiles from Britain and from France, the Storm Shadow, that were supplied previously.
They are not.
Those were not.
In their targeting capabilities and in the power of their punch, they were not capable of delivering a really destructive blow against bridges or fortified underground positions.
This missile, the Taurus, has that capability and the Russians have no experience dealing with the unique features of its targeting.
This is a cruise missile, so it has changeable paths of attack and is difficult to intercept.
For that reason, the Russians are particularly concerned about its becoming available to Kyiv, since it could do what the previous deliveries from Britain and France and the United States with HIMARS were incapable of doing.
One of our viewers writes that the range is 300 kilometers.
Is that if that is accurate and if this is fired from Ukraine territory, can it reach Well, as far as I know, 350 kilometers is the limit on Storm Shadow.
The Taurus is 500 kilometers.
And that is the significance of Mert's saying two days ago that limitations on range are no longer hold.
He meant precisely the longer-range towers.
Are the Germans prepared for a couple of Ereshniks aimed at their industrial base?
I don't think that Mr. Merz takes seriously the Russian threats.
After all, he could say...
However, that is ignoring the Russian view of Germany as opposed to its former allies.
Russia is neuralgic, is hypersensitive to what the Germans do.
And the recent celebration of the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Europe, May 9th, we were all reminded about the 26 million Russians who died in that conflict, largely due to German military efforts.
And that is unforgivable, unforgettable.
So anything that Germany does, it takes a special case for Russia.
And as I said, He wouldn't want to.
The popular will in Russia is to differentiate between German missiles and the others in a way that means the Russians will have to respond in a dramatic way.
Now, taking out military production facilities, I'm not sure that that would be the first thing that happens because that particular facility making the towers has been Wow.
Here's Chancellor Mertz.
Two days ago on this very topic, Chris, cut number seven.
There are no longer any range restrictions on weapons delivered to Ukraine, neither from the British, nor the French, nor from us, nor from the Americans.
This means that Ukraine can now also defend itself, including, for example, by taking actions such as attacking military positions located within Russia, or by targeting other strategic sites as necessary.
Until recently it was not able to do that.
Until recently, with very few exceptions, it also did not do that.
Now it can.
In jargon, we call this long-range fire, meaning equipping Ukraine with weapons that can attack military targets in the rear.
And this is the decisive, this is the crucial qualitative difference in Ukraine's conduct of the war.
Russia attacks civilian targets completely ruthlessly, bombing cities, kindergartens, hospitals, and nursing homes.
Ukraine does not do that and we place great importance on ensuring that it stays that way.
But a country that can only confront an aggressor on its own territory is not defending itself adequately.
So and this defense of Ukraine is now also taking place against military infrastructure on Russian territory.
Before I ask you to analyze that, that was an AI translation from German to English using his voice.
Amazing what can be done today.
What is he trying to accomplish?
He is preparing a justification in advance for the deployment of these missiles, for their use in striking against Russian targets, and he is lying through his teeth.
Everything that he said about the Russian conduct of the war is an outrageous lie scripted in Kyiv.
It is precisely the Ukrainians that have been using terror techniques and deploying their drones and what missiles they have, primarily against civilian targets.
That's been the nature of the warfare going back to 2014.
They were destroying civilian residential neighborhoods and playgrounds and hospitals and that's continued to this date.
The Ukrainians have made some attacks on militarily important facilities, but that is the number of such attacks versus their overall activity of like 2,000 drones were sent into the Russian Federation in the last two weeks by the Ukrainians.
They knocked out or they hit at least one facility producing Is
it too early in his chancellorship?
For me to ask you fairly, in fairness to you, whether you agree with the Scott Ritter analysis that Mertz is the most dangerous German Chancellor since Hitler.
Oh, I agree completely with that.
He is utterly irresponsible.
And he is courting disaster for his country.
If he believes, and there's another factor here.
That he may well think, first, that the Russians won't dare strike against Germany, and there is dead wrong.
They've said it openly, they will.
And second, that if they were to do so, then the United States and the other allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would respond and come to Germany's aid.
Nonsense.
Maybe other European countries singly will do that, but the United States, I believe, will abstain.
And that will condemn completely the notion of a united defense to save Germany from itself.
Therefore, Germany will likely suffer uniquely Russian revenge.
Let's transition a little bit.
In one of your recent pieces, you wrote about the things Ukrainian soldiers returning from the front.
Are saying about their Russian counterparts?
What are they saying?
Well, I want to point out that this came from an article that was posted by a non-staff person from the Financial Times on the front page of their newspaper online perhaps two days ago.
And it was quite astonishing because of the openness, transparency of the reporting.
Much of the information was coming, in fact, from Russian television, though the reporter, the writer, author of this piece did not refer to Russian television.
Nonetheless, he also interviewed on the battlefield, on the front, Ukrainian soldiers who were saying openly that the Russians are using very effective new tactics.
For example, they are.
They're coming in on motorcycles in small groups.
And they're surprising the Ukrainian defenders.
Of various hamlets on the front line and taking over territory.
But the Russians are being very inventive while also they are supporting their forward movement by heavy artillery, by glide bombs and other serious military equipment.
So the Ukrainians are acknowledging the Russian advantage technically.
What are the numerical differences of which you're aware and which you find credible, pardon me, between Russian enlistments and Ukrainian conscriptions?
And this was also repeated in the article I'm making reference to.
And the importance of citing this article is that editorially, the Financial Times is viciously anti-Russian.
Some of the journalists slip in some interesting and useful information, considering it is a business newspaper after all, regarding the state of the Russian economy.
Even yesterday they had an article citing the prosperity and the good feelings of the Russian consumers and general population.
But the newspaper is anti-Russian and yet they are putting up This material that I just described as a kind of forewarning, I think, to their business subscribers to expect a Ukrainian defeat, something which would not have been acknowledged in any way going back a few months ago.
Let's talk for a moment, if we could, about the attempted, this has gotten very, very little play in the West, the attempted assassination of President Putin using drones while he was in a helicopter.
Isn't it reasonable to believe that the information about his presence in that helicopter and the location of the helicopter was supplied to the Ukrainians by either MI6, CIA, or Mossad?
It is possible, but not necessary.
One of the points The Russian targeting of Ukrainian Western supplied equipment is largely coming from constant reconnaissance drones.
It's not coming from satellites.
And so it is entirely possible that the Ukrainians themselves could have He detected a special movement.
After all, Putin was coming close to the border.
He was visiting Kursk, and that is a bordering obelist.
So it is possible the Ukrainians could have learned this through their own reconnaissance, that is, technical means, or they could have learned it from espionage, from leaks.
Let's face it, recently it came out.
That the reason why the Ukrainian incursion, later invasion, of Korsk succeeded so well was because of widespread corruption in the oblast of Korsk.
And this has come out in the last several days.
Severe attack on a local administration which had stolen the money that had been appropriated for defense of the border.
It is possible that there are Russians within Kursk who are working for But the concept of assassinating President Putin, is it rational that that plan would have been hatched without the Americans knowing about it?
I think we have to acknowledge that the Ukrainian government, regime, what you want to call it, is desperate.
Now, this leads us to the question, Is a collapse of the army imminent?
I don't think so.
But they are desperate.
They are fearing perhaps that they will be overthrown because of the military reverses.
And they are ready for anything, meaning primarily terrorism.
Let me alert you to something that isn't talked about.
Turkish Airlines have warned passengers on their flights to Russia now that they may be grounded.
If Turkey believes that its flights from Istanbul could be subject to Ukrainian drones.
So that the Ukrainians would even think of attacking Turkish Airlines shows you how desperate and totally violent and irresponsible and terrorist in nature the Ukrainian government has become.
Do you think that mainstream media here in the West is beginning to recognize all this?
Or is the Financial Times not a barometer of mainstream media?
No, I think it is a barometer.
But that doesn't mean that they are totally current in bringing up to date all aspects of Ukrainian activities.
As recently as a day ago, nobody was talking in the Financial Times, just as they weren't talking in other Western mainstream.
About the massive increase in Ukrainian drone attacks on Russia that preceded the Russian counterattack, which is the only thing that has been covered, and which the Russians have done massive bombing of Kiev and other cities.
That got everybody's attention, but what provoked it has been ignored by the Financial Times as well as the rest of the mainstream.
Here's President Trump expressing disappointment with the current state of affairs.
Chris, cut number 13. Do you believe the Russians are being disrespectful when they say that your criticisms of Putin are simply an emotional response?
And do you still believe that Putin actually wants to end the war?
I can't tell you that, but I'll let you know in about two weeks, within two weeks.
We're going to find out very soon.
We're going to find out whether or not he's tapping us along or not.
And if he is, we'll respond a little bit differently.
But it'll take about a week and a half, two weeks.
We have Mr. Whitcoff is here who's doing a phenomenal job, is dealing with them very strongly right now.
They seem to want to do something, but until the document is signed, I can't tell you.
Nobody can.
I can say this, I can say this, that I'm very disappointed by that.
Very, very disappointed.
What do the Russians think of him when he makes comments like that?
Let's divide this between what they think and what they say.
What they say is very diplomatic.
You know what Pieskov said precisely, that the Americans are reacting emotionally, that it's very tense and therefore it could be explained away.
However, that's not what Moscow thinks.
That's what Moscow feels obliged to say, not to tip its hands to Donald Trump's enemies and opponents.
They would, what Moscow thinks, it was called out also on Russian news yesterday, that is Lindsey Graham's 80 Senate signatures on the bill that he has advanced.
To call for drastic sanctions to be imposed on Russia.
This is a bill that will be veto-proof.
And this may condition what Mr. Trump was saying yesterday.
You'll see in two weeks what our response will be.
I think that if this motion by Lindsey Graham, and that's 80 he signed up, proceeds, and they force Trump's hand on this issue, that he will respond.
By indeed walking away from the negotiations, saying we've done our best and leaving with a fair-handed equal treatment.
That is, the Russians will get more sanctions and the Ukrainians will get no more financial military aid or reconnaissance aid from the United States.
And that will look very good.
He's prepared.
But I do say that he's not ignorant.
The man who delivered that speech in Saudi Arabia.
Which you, I and so many others consider to be a brilliant and the most astonishing denunciation of the whole ideology of neocons in the presence of the Saudi leaders saying that you've done it yourself, you've gotten democracy, you've gotten prosperity, no thanks to us because we've only brought death and destruction wherever we try to do nation building.
The man who delivered that.
He didn't write it.
It's not important.
He delivered it.
And he knew what he was delivering.
That man cannot be described as a buffoon.
I am certain, Judge, that he knows as much and probably a lot more than you or I or anyone else around about what the situation is on the ground in Russia today.
And it's not thanks to the National Security Council, which he has been busy depopulating because it was packed by Biden.
I have to note that standing next to him, I don't know if you could just put up an image, Chris, of what we just saw from Cut 13, where President Trump was speaking, just for a second.
Just put up the beginning of number 13. Chris?
All right, maybe we can't get it up.
Do you believe the Russians are being disrespectful when they say that your criticisms of Putin are simply an emotional response?
And do you still believe that Putin actually wants to end the war?
I can't tell you that, but I'll let you know in about two weeks, within two weeks.
We're going to find out very soon.
We're going to find out whether or not he's tapping us along or not.
And if he is, we'll respond a little bit differently.
But it'll take about a week and a half, two weeks.
Mr. Whitcoff is here, is doing a phenomenal job, is dealing with them very strongly right now.
They seem to want to do something, but until the document is signed, I can't tell you.
Nobody can.
I can say this.
I had to comment about the woman standing next to him.
That is Janine Pirro, the interim U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., my former colleague at Fox News whom I've known for 20 years.
That is the longest she's ever been in front of a camera without saying a word.
Tell us about your new book, War Diaries, Professor.
Well, this is a book I've noticed when I went to Amazon that somebody in Ukrainian has published War Diary in Singular about a year ago.
They're telling the story from the perspective of the Ukrainians.
I'm telling the story as it It is not intended to be a comprehensive history of the war.
It's intended to be a personal account of what has changed in Russia, how society has changed, the thinking of the man on the street, the thinking of the intelligentsia, the rise in patriotism.
All of these are features that I tracked over the course of the war, as you know, in essays that I wrote day by day, week by week.
And I have called that to produce this very large book, which in some respects will be a reference book.
But I think that readers will find that there are good chunks of it which speak to them directly and interest them, particularly my travels in Russia, which were...
Nonetheless, this was a unique reportage because Western journalists all left the country at the start of the special military operation.
And I think it's ultimately a valuable contribution.
There will be a volume two.
I'm hoping that I can produce it by the end of this year because the war will be over by then.
But of course, nobody knows.
Nobody knows.
Well, we all know how much we appreciate you.
Thank you for sending the essays, however long or short they may be.
I have the benefit of your thinking all the time and almost instantaneously.
I can't wait to get my copy of the book.
And thank you very much for your time today.
And I've already heard from Janine Pirro, who apparently is watching this.
She loved the wisecrack that I made.
All the best.
Thank you for joining us, Professor.
No, thank you.
Of course.
And coming up later today, we have a full day for you at 2.15, 2.15 this afternoon, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson at 3 o 'clock, Professor John Mearsheimer at 4 o 'clock from wherever he is on the planet, Max Blumenthal, and at 5 o 'clock, Professor Jeffrey Sachs.
Export Selection