All Episodes
Previous Next
July 2, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
22:12
Prof. Gilbert Doctorow : Russia’s Into War vs NATO
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Adjudging Freedom.
Today is Wednesday, July 2nd, 2025.
Professor Gilbert Doctorow will be here with us in just a moment on Russia's information war against NATO and other relevant topics.
But first, this.
We all know how devastating war is.
Lives lost, communities destroyed.
But war can also threaten your financial freedom.
That's where America's heading.
Our growing involvement in global conflicts.
It means more spending, more debt, and a weaker dollar.
That's a direct hit to your wallet.
So here are three things to keep your eyes on.
Exploding debt, declining dollar, rising prices of gold and silver.
These things are already happening.
Golden Stacks predicts gold could hit $4,500 an ounce by 2026.
Why?
Because central banks and smart investors are buying gold hand over fist.
They know what's coming and they're hedging against it.
Currency collapse, inflation, and market volatility.
Gold has been a trusted store of value for thousands of years and today we need that protection more than ever.
Call Lear Capital Now at 800-511-4620 or visit LearjudsNap.com.
No one is going to protect your wealth for you.
You need to do it yourself.
And now is the time.
Professor Doctorow, welcome here, my dear friend.
What is your understanding of the current status of the special military operation in Ukraine, or at least the Kremlin's view of the current status of the special military operation in Ukraine?
Well, the Russians announced yesterday with great pride that they have completely liberated Lugansk Oblast, which is one of the two regions of formerly of Ukraine that we call the Donbass.
There was about 3% was left under Ukrainian occupation of the Hivits, as they were viewed from Russia, but that was cleaned up and now the whole of Lugansk is theirs.
They were also making substantial progress in Donetsk.
They are going after men more than going after territory.
They want to deprive Ukraine of an effective military and do that at minimum cost to themselves.
And so they're proceeding not so much in a showy way by the territory that they seize, although they are adding several square kilometers every day or two, but they are doing it in a way that the losses of personnel by Ukraine are, again, well over a thousand a day.
And in the Donbas, they continue to advance and to bomb and destroy the major logistical hubs that still are under Ukrainian control in Donetsk.
And that is, first of all, Pakrovsk, as the Ukrainians know it, or Krasno-Armysk, as it's called in Russian.
So they show you every day this town or that town, well, settlement would be a better title, that they are taking control of in the Donbas.
The Russian flag goes up, or even a regional flag representing the military unit that was responsible for this particular action.
For example, it could be Baikal, the Baikal troops from Baikal, and they would raise up a Baikal flag over this or that hamlet.
But let's be clear about it.
The Ukrainians are moving back, but their lines are not collapsing.
And I wouldn't want to read into this, into the progress that the Russians are making, the suggestion that Ukraine is on the point of collapse.
Nonetheless, everyone knows well that the Trump administration has curtailed, if not stopped, shipment of many valuable military assets to Ukraine.
I think, first of all, those Patriots are not going to Ukraine.
That's clear as day.
And other anti-aircraft.
The thing they need the most, I know you're not a military person, neither am I, but we can use our sense of reason.
The 155 millimeter artillery shells, because the American supply of those is dangerously low.
GMLRS rockets, I'm not sure what that is, and Stinger Hellfire missiles.
All of a sudden, the Spigot has been partially closed.
Please continue.
Yes.
Well, the Spigot has been closed, and that sends a message to the Ukrainian military that they have to be particularly parsimonious with their forces and avoid direct confrontation with the Russians where possible, because they simply don't have the supplies of weaponry, offensive and defensive, that they would like and that they need.
So their situation is dire, but not desperate, not hopeless, and not urgent in the sense that tomorrow or the week after the capitulation, it won't be.
Nonetheless, the Russians are feeling good about the way the war is going.
And Mr. Putin has probably picked up a little bit more support among Wavering Russian patriots who would like to see action faster.
Is there pressure on President Putin from his right to get more aggressive?
I'll just throw a name out there.
I don't know if he says these things for PR reasons or because he's actually saying this to his colleague.
A former president, Medvedev, for example, has from time to time pounds the table.
Is that pressure still on President Putin?
Or if it is, does it go in one ear and out the other?
Well, as regards Medvedev, he's well under control by President Putin.
And he is the attack dog that Mr. Putin has set up.
He's not attacking Putin.
He's taking the initiative to put the West down noticed about Russia's plans for continuing the war.
So I wouldn't look at Dmedev as a force against Putin, not at all.
He's an instrument of Putin.
But there are people, of course.
There are, well, even this political scientist, Karaganov, who a year and a half ago was calling for a military strike in Germany using the Arashnik, using even a tactical nuclear weapon to demonstrate if the Russians are serious and to take their red lines with all due seriousness.
So that pressure exists, but I don't believe that Mr. Putin is responding to it or is forced to change his tactics and not to mention strategy as a result of this, since the armed forces have good news to put up on the television screen every day.
Right, right.
What is the current attitude of Russia toward NATO, taking into account, of course, the rather extraordinary telephone conversation that President Putin had with French President Macron yesterday for two hours, the first time they spoke in three years?
Well, this is really two questions, and I want to be sure that I get a handle on both of them.
Sure, sure.
Address it as you see fit, please.
They're very important.
I think that the general public and the Western media are interpreting the call by Macron to Putin in the wrong way.
We have very little information coming from anyone other than Mr. Putin as to what they talked about.
He said they talked about, that he delivered to Mr. Macron Russia's view of how this war will end.
And we all know that.
I won't repeat the points, that they have to go back to the original source of the problem, resolve that, and not just have a ceasefire.
So Mr. Putin used the opportunity to tell Macron directly what he otherwise would know indirectly from the Russian memorandum delivered to the Ukrainians at their last Istanbul meeting.
However, that is misleading.
My understanding of the reason for the call is rather different.
Macron reached out to Putin to involve the Russians in reinstating the old agreements with Iran over its enrichment program, the one that Mr. Trump pulled the United States out of.
Russia was a party to that, and so it's impossible for the European Union to proceed and try to reinsert itself into the peace process with Iran, since they've been totally sidelined by the United States.
But if they reinsert themselves, they have to bring in Putin.
Let's just remember that until relatively recently, when Viktor Orban went to speak with Putin, he was denounced by the EU for breaking ranks with the rest of the EU member states over the isolation of Russia.
And here we have Mr. McRowan as if he's doing this on his own, spontaneously.
He's a nice guy.
He's just changed his view.
No.
He did this as the emissary of the EU on behalf of Kalas and Founder Leyen, who want to get Russia back, help them get back into the Iran negotiations.
Do you think he called up his buddies Kier Starmer and Frederick Mertz and said, I'm about to talk to Vladimir?
What do you want me to say to him?
Or do you think he did it on his own with just the EU leadership backing?
I think it's the latter.
Well, sufficient.
That's entirely sufficient.
He is running for the microphone and to be at the head of the band at any opportunity he has.
And so when, say, Carlos or Vandaleyan tapped him and said, look, we need somebody to reach out to Putin, he would have been overjoyed.
And I don't think he would look for a consent from Mertz, who's answering.
It's odd that they had their conversation yesterday, or maybe there's a connection here.
You can analyze it for us, please.
French missiles were used to kill Russian civilians just two days ago.
Could that have been the impetus for the Macron phone call?
I think it would have pushed things along, yes, because Macron would be aware that Russian animus towards France had just gone up a few levels in light of that.
This missile was originally identified, I think, by Western sources as having been storm shadow.
No.
Well, if you call it Storm Shadow, it was British.
If you call it, I think Scalp, I forget what the French call it, it's the same missile.
Okay, but I mean, the Western sources thought the missile that killed the Russian civilians came from Starmer.
In fact, it came from Macron.
Am I correct?
You're exactly correct.
Now, this is not my assumption.
It's not some contacts I have with Russian military, nothing of the sort.
I'm repeating what was on Russian television yesterday.
And whether that is true or not is almost irrelevant.
If the Russians are saying there was a French missile, then for all practical purposes in diplomatic relations, it was a French missile.
Wow.
What is going on between Russia and Azerbaijan as we speak?
And how potentially inflammatory is this?
It is inflammatory, but it has interests, I think, for the audience of this program for several reasons.
I think the most prominent reason is that I've said in the past, Russia is not a cuddly rabbit.
Russia is what it is, which is a major power, and major powers sometimes behave badly.
And in the case of the relations with Azerbaijan, Moscow behaved very badly.
This problem, and it is a big problem right now, but it is more in symbolic ways.
The Azerbaijanis are giving every day some new signal to Moscow, boy, we don't like what you're doing and we don't like you.
And they say that openly.
There are accusations against the Kremlin directly in Azerbaijani media.
And we're going to start by a very shabby response from the Kremlin to the downing of a passenger airplane, Azerbaijani airplane, about six months ago, as it was flying in the south of Russia in an area which was under attack by Ukrainian drones at the time.
This is the, I'm giving you the Russian side of the story, that it was mistakenly downed, although they didn't even admit that.
It was mistakenly shot down because Russia was responding to the drones that were in the air in that area coming in from Ukraine.
Well, whatever the truth there is in that, there was a mistake, la la, the most important thing was what the Russians didn't do after this catastrophe, which took many lives.
They did not apologize to Azerbaijan.
They did not offer to pay compensation for the plane, or more importantly, to the passengers on that plane.
This was shocking.
In international behavior, this was terrible.
And to this day, the Kremlin has not said, we are sorry, we made a mistake.
And in Baku, they're furious.
In February, when this occurred, shortly afterwards, they closed Russia's cultural center in Baku, Russia House.
The last few days, they've shut down all Russian language courses in their secondary, in their school system.
These are clear messages.
They've also arrested the editors of Sputnik, this Russian news agency in Baku, about which Moscow is now owling to the skies.
The whole problem began with Moscow, and from the perspective of Azerbaijan, they were behaving like bullies and like imperialists.
And I mention this to highlight this point.
Let's not get carried away and believe that Russia is always an innocent.
No, Russia is a state power, and state powers behave badly from time to time, and they have to be told that.
Now, as to how serious it is, I believe that there is foreign intervention here to exacerbate the situation.
When you say that, you mean MI6, CIA, or Mossad.
None of the above, French.
I believe the French are somehow involved.
Look, the French are very active in the Caucasus region.
They are the ones behind the rebellion, call it, of the prime minister of Armenia against relations with Moscow, this Nicole Ashnyan, who is making a bid to join the EU, who has been absent from major meetings of former Soviet Union.
Gee, I wonder if this was discussed between Presidents Macron and Putin yesterday.
It could be, but of course, none of this would come out to the public.
But I say the French are mixed up in the Caucasus.
If you look at the map, Azerbaijan is right there.
So it is not inconceivable that the French could have been active in exacerbating relations.
Let's go to Iran, if we could, before we conclude.
What is your view, Professor Dr. O, about why Donald Trump dropped those 30,000-pound bombs?
Was it a regime change?
Was it just to get Netanyahu off his back?
Was it a serious attempt to set back the nuclear program?
Or was it a pinprick, a big pinprick designed not to kill human beings, but to bring them to the negotiating table?
I think it was all of the above.
The question really for any analyst is to weight those various factors, but they're all present.
I think that, well, there's one that you didn't mention, which I said, which I jumped on first when I was trying to make sense out of his action, and that is to prevent Netanyahu from using nuclear weapons against these Iranian positions, because absent American assistance, that is the only thing that would be in the Israeli arsenal that could have a chance of doing the job.
So I think to prevent the Israelis from doing something horrific and to take the ball away from Netanyahu and to eliminate either de facto, really, or in words,
the Iranian nuclear program and put an end to this whole crisis in the Middle East around the nuclear program that has been a 30-year ide fix of Netanyahu and his associates.
How is it that Mossad, which claims to be the most effective intelligence service on the planet, so grossly Underestimated the power and ferocity and destructive capability of Iran's retaliation.
Didn't they warn Netanyahu accurately of what would happen?
I think they didn't.
There are a number of mistakes made by Israeli intelligence, which were suffering a real case of hubris after their delight in decapitating the neighboring, let's say, cat's paws of Iran, in Lebanon, with their gadgets that exploded in the hands of the Hezbollah leaders.
They certainly were delighted at having set the plan.
This goes back several years, waiting to spring the plan on Iran to decapitate the top generals in their forces and the leading scientists in their nuclear program.
They had their eyes perfectly focused on minutia, and they were suffering from nearsightedness.
They didn't focus their eyes on the big picture.
They should have known about the 40,000 missiles.
They should have known about the hidden launchers underground, which the Israeli Air Force could not decimate.
And my assumption is that they gave Netanyahu inadequate information, which is for the intelligence agency the most damning thing you can say.
Right.
Right.
I suppose the only thing worse is what the American intelligence agency does, telling the president what they think he wants to hear, whether it's connected to the facts or not.
Professor Doctor, thank you very much.
Thanks for your time as always.
And again, thank you for all those notes and insights that you periodically send.
I read every word of them and appreciate all the thoughtfulness behind it.
I guess they don't celebrate the 4th of July in Europe.
They certainly don't celebrate it in England.
I know you're not in England, but have a nice weekend.
It's a big holiday weekend here, and we'll look forward to seeing you next week.
Well, we will celebrate.
We'll cool off.
I mean, it's been 95 degrees in Brussels.
Tomorrow it drops 270.
Oh, nice to hear.
All the best to you, Professor.
Thank you.
Thanks.
Bye-bye.
Sure.
And coming up later today at 2 o'clock this afternoon, Aaron Mate at 3 o'clock.
Phil Giraldi at 4 o'clock.
We'll find him.
▲
Export Selection