All Episodes
Previous Next
July 8, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
27:12
Prof. Gilbert Doctorow : Understanding the Russian Way of War.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Ajudging Freedom.
Today is Wednesday, July 9th, 2025.
Professor Gilbert Doctorow will be here with us in just a moment on a Russian view of war, the view of the special military operation from the perspective of the Kremlin and some related interesting summertime events involving governance in Europe.
But first this.
Why do so many financial experts call silver the most undervalued asset today?
Because silver is essential to the future.
From solar tech and electric vehicles to the explosive growth of artificial intelligence, demand is rising fast and yet silver is still trading in a bargain.
With billions pouring into AI, silver prices have only one place to go.
Robert Kiasaki, the author of Rich Dan Poor Dead, says silver may be the most overlooked opportunity on the market and could double or triple by 2026.
I believe in hard assets like this bar of silver.
You can hold it in your hand or put it in your 401k or IRA.
That's why I urge you to call my friends at Lear Capital and get their free report the AI revolution and see why silver prices are set to store.
Call 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620 or go to LearJudsNap.com.
Don't wait.
The government can print dollars, but it can't print silver.
Professor Dr. Ogadetio, my friend.
Welcome here.
Thank you for accommodating my schedule.
What is the status of the special military operation as you understand it from the perspective of the Kremlin as we speak?
They're not calling it a major operation, but de facto it is.
The Russians' aerial attacks on Ukraine have increased dramatically in the last several weeks.
The last couple of days, there were something like 700 missiles and drones fired at various cities in Ukraine.
The projection is that in the coming days, the numbers will rise to more than a thousand a day.
Now, maybe 10% of that will be missiles.
90% will be drones, but the drones are quite destructive.
This geranium, as they call it, attack drone that the Russians are using in the last few days, has demonstrated itself to be very effective in demolishing whole buildings.
What is the level of participation, as far as you can tell, of President Putin himself in military tactics?
Stated differently, does he give to his generals complete freedom to wage the war, or is he like Lyndon Johnson going over maps with General Westmoreland?
I doubt that it's the latter, but he certainly is influencing the pace, the tempo, the intensiveness of the war, which has increased.
And I don't think the generals were deciding that on their own.
I think it was conferring with him on what comes next.
The Russians have taken advantage of the general silence in Russian-related affairs that has set in during the Iran-Israeli war.
They are taking advantage of the summer season.
That's a good time for waging war in general in that part of the world.
And they are fighting a very tough war.
And I'd like to distinguish my remarks from what some peers are saying.
Particularly the titles that are given to their videos on YouTube, the various not very responsible platforms, are speaking as if Ukraine is going to collapse tomorrow.
Nothing of the sort.
And I think the best proof of that is what happens in the last week.
These last few days, we saw the great importance of a send-off for a general, lieutenant general, the most awarded, the highest awarded Russian warrior in decades.
This is General Gutkov, who was killed on the front lines.
This is the very man whom you showed on this program when Putin visited that submarine several months ago.
And he was speaking to the sailors.
He was discussing with them the purposes of a special military operation.
And he used the opportunity to elevate a certain group of to be number two or three person in Russian armed forces in charge of all of the Marines.
This man came from the Far Eastern Marines.
So we saw him on television receiving this order, raising his rank.
And this week, we saw Mr. Putin, President Putin, giving the second medal, hero of the Russian Federation, to his widow.
He was killed.
Now, why do I mention this?
It's important by itself, but how he died is important.
He was killed by incoming return fire from the Ukrainian side.
Return fire.
He was at an artillery station and that was hit by return artillery.
That tells you that the Ukrainians are very capable.
They could spot instantly where the fire came from and they could direct their own fire against it.
That is not the science.
Was the fire intended to assassinate him or was his death a byproduct of the fire?
A byproduct.
We only knew about these deaths because it was Lieutenant General who was killed.
If it had just been ordinary soldiers, you never would have heard about it.
How deadly has been the Ukrainian counter-attack, a portion of which you have just addressed?
Well, this was returned fire.
It wasn't as such a move of large numbers of soldiers.
No, it was on the front lines.
It demonstrates the capability, the determination of the Ukrainian side to return fire, which is not an easy thing to do.
We also note in, I think it was in today's Herald Tribune, they remarked that the Ukrainians have now started putting into service drones which are on fixed wires.
That's to say, these very slender, hair-thin wires are attached.
They can be several kilometers worth of wire.
And the advantage in this is that they are immune from usual counter-strikes, from destruction, because they do not rely on GPS or are vulnerable to electronic warfare.
Now, the Ukrainians just caught up with this.
The Russians have been doing this for the last several months to great effect.
And here the Ukrainians are now in on the same thing.
So the Ukrainian side is by no means down the ropes.
It has very serious problems.
It says that it can recruit 25,000 men a month.
We know the Russians are recruiting 50,000 a month.
So in terms of manpower, the Russians have a big advantage.
But the Ukrainians are not out yet.
And this is why the Russian activities today are much more offensive, much more aggressive, and less scrupulous about civilian deaths.
Do you agree with Scott Ritter who says Ukraine is in hospice?
He likened the government, not the country, the government and the military to a patient who's in hospice just trying to stay comfortable until the end of days.
I agree with someone else, Nikolai Petrov, who is a Ukrainian expert.
He doesn't usually come out with responding to current situations, but he has come out saying that Ukraine will collapse politically.
And that's what I've been saying for some time.
It is not a pure military collapse, but a political collapse is entirely possible because the situation is very strained.
There's a lot of resistance to the recruitment methods that are being used to fill those 25,000 slots that I mentioned.
It's called impressment, a fancy phrase for kidnapping.
Yes.
Now, one of the newest developments on the Russian side showing they're taking off their gloves is in the last week they have destroyed using these geranium-guranium attack drones five recruitment centers across Ukraine, including in Kharkiv.
They are playing on the antagonism between large strata of the Ukrainian population who otherwise are patriotic and the methods of raising soldiers for the war that this government is now using.
It is reasonable to understand that in a place like Kharkov, a large part of the population would say very good if the Russians destroyed this.
Wow.
How does the Kremlin view the American pause in the delivery of military equipment, this on again, off-again, on again, particularly when the president claims he knew nothing about it.
Now it turns out the Secretary of Defense claims he knew nothing about it, that the decision was made by his deputy, who supposedly didn't tell him, and thus nobody told the president.
How does the Kremlin view that?
Well, the latest reading I would take is on something still more recent than what you just discussed.
That is Trump saying, ah, the Russians are hitting so hard that we have to give Ukraine some more defensive weapons.
Well, that was the news yesterday, say, on the Vladimir Solovyov show, and it resulted in their mocking Trump, just as they were mocking him when he said that he's not satisfied with Mr. Putin anymore.
For this Solovyov, who two days before was singing Trump's praises, well, that is history.
They were speaking of him yesterday in rather derogatory terms, and with good reason, that Trump is making a fool of himself by flip-flopping day after day.
I give them, I don't give them.
The most important point I think was made by Lavlov in answer to this very question.
The giving more defensive weapons, that means of course patriots, 10 patriots, that'll last like one day in Ukrainian war.
Giving them more defensive weapons will have no impact on the war.
If we didn't learn anything from the Israeli war with Iran, it's that there is no such thing as an iron dome, that the best and most densely established missiles,
interceptors, are useless against the latest generation of hypersonic missiles, of which Russia has plenty and is making many more.
Therefore, whatever the United States gives in Trump's latest turn of events will not help Ukraine.
Are the Russians using chemical weapons?
Well, this is of course the kind of thing that Russia's enemies in the States and elsewhere would like to bring to the attention of the world public.
And they will accuse Russia without attempting to do any serious research.
Of course, they're not.
It's like asking: would the Russians use tactical nuclear weapons when they are doing so well with conventional weapons and may do even better if they introduce Yareshnik to the fight against Kiev?
It would be utterly stupid to violate international law and expose themselves to retribution from the world community.
I ask that because of a question and a bizarre response.
I almost wonder if the question wasn't a plant by those who want to smear Russia, since as you indicate, there's no evidence of this whatsoever.
But it was put to the president, who whispered to the Secretary of Defense, who whispered back to the president, who called on the director of the CIA, who basically made a statement of law, not an acknowledgement of this.
But this is a fascinating back and forth, back and forth yesterday in the midst of a two-hour nationally televised cabinet meeting.
Donald Trump, Pete Hagg, Seth, John Ratcliffe, although the first voice you'll hear is a little garbled, but it's a reporter who's trying to get to the bottom of this chemical weapon issue.
Chris, cut number four.
And Ukraine, the Ukrainians banned the international accord to go after Russia for using toxic chemicals in the fight.
Germany and the Netherlands have had intelligence saying that.
What does US intelligence believe and what do you believe about the use of chemical weapons in the UK?
What if John may be to discuss it if you'd like, John?
Well, Mr. President, obviously chemical weapons, if it's documented and it's used, it's illegal.
It's against all international laws of armed conflict and treaties.
And obviously, I can't share in this room with this audience the intelligence that I can share with you privately.
But obviously, you're not going to stand or allow for any violations of international law by anyone.
That's right.
Thank you.
So the only thing interesting there to me, and of course you would have to have seen this because Chris put the words up on the screen since they just whispered it, was Trump saying to Hegseth, do you know anything about this, Pete?
And Hegseth whispers back, no, I don't, but John will, John being John Ratcliffe, the director of the CIA, who basically made an incriminating statement about the Russians without mentioning them by name.
I thought it was horrific what he did.
But anyway, what does the Kremlin think when they see nonsense like this?
It's almost like a dog and pony show.
Well, I think they know what to expect with us in a cynical way, unfortunately.
But let's say that chemical weapons have not been used in this war in three years, but the Ukrainians came very close to it.
Not weapons as such, but attacks on production facilities where there were dangerous chemicals that they bombed for the sake of releasing these chemicals into the neighborhood.
So the Ukrainians have been the ones who have been closest in these three years of war to chemical warfare.
To accuse the Russians of that is the height of cynicism.
Nothing of the sort has happened.
Is there any, before we jump to these fascinating events in Europe about which I know you want to speak because you're a student of all this, but before we do, is there any pressure on President Putin to ramp up the ferocity of the military activities?
Not today, because that's exactly what he's doing.
I think he will have satisfied his theorist critics by the conduct of the war.
The Russians are about to be launching 1,000 drones and missiles at Ukraine every day.
That is a record.
No one has maintained that or could maintain it for the indefinite period that Russia can.
Perhaps Iran with its 40,000 reported missiles could do something like that, but it ended in 12 days.
The Russian war with Ukraine will go on as long as it takes.
And there's no question but Mr. Putin can persist in this very intense, destructive aerial warfare.
And by the way, this is not just missiles and it's not just drones.
I think the last few days there were 1,000 of these guided heavy bombs that were used with enormous effect.
These aren't quite the 15,000 ton bombs that the U.S. possesses, but a thousand, couple thousand, 3,000 ton bombs can do a very good job.
What is the scandal in Europe involving the EU referred to locally as Pfizergate?
Here in Europe, justice works.
The millstones of justice work.
They grind very fine, but they grind very slowly.
The Pfizergate scandal, which is over the alleged abuse of authority by the president of the European Commission, Ursula Montley, this goes back to the last mandate she had, not the current presidency, but the previous presidency during the midst of the COVID pandemic.
She concluded with Pfizer a deal that was sealed by an SMS, which she Refused to release to court investigations.
The European Court of Justice found this whole case, which was brought several years ago, to be a violation of the procedures of the European institutions.
How much money are we talking about?
It was $35 billion in contract to Pfizer, which was not held up to competition, which was awarded on the say-so of one von der Leyen, and which touched off the ongoing procedure of censure that will culminate tomorrow in a vote in the parliament.
For those who would like to follow this, the most interesting, the most valuable speeches, it's only two hours total time was allowed for this presentation of the censure motion.
And that was itself scandalous, because as one of the deputies in the parliament pointed out, you are only allowing the heads of various groups, blocks of voters, of parliamentarians, and not members of those blocks who may have additional perspectives and may differ with the heads of their group.
In any case, about two hours total is on video.
I think the Irish Parliament video is the most valuable one.
You can find it on here's a one-minute version of one of the members of the European Parliament.
You sent this to us, ripping into her while she's seated right there.
Chris Cutt, number two.
Madam President von der Leyen, dear colleagues, Europe deserves better than silence, better than opaque operations, better than bureaucratic authoritarianism.
For six years now, you have been heading this commission, and it's a Jupiter verticalism that you apply, cut off from the people, and all too often also cut off from the values that founded our continent.
Pfizergate is not an administrative error, it is a question of abuse of power.
35 billion Euros, the public tenure, negotiated by SMS without a court attendance, without a mandate, without transparency.
The Court of Justice of the European Union has upheld this.
You acted alone, outside of any kind of democratic framework, and therefore it's not just your error.
Not your fault.
It's not just your fault.
It is actually symbolic of an even graver drift, namely the fact that Europe is being steered disregarding the people.
Under your authority, the Commission has become basically the extended arm of corporations, foreign entities, sometimes far removed from our civilization.
You talk about transition, but millions of Europeans are experiencing this as punishment.
So is that the Europe that you're defending, madam?
A Europe where decisions are taken without any debate?
No, I'm sorry, Mrs. von der Leyen.
This Europe is not our Europe.
Our Europe is the Europe of freedoms.
The Europe that respects identities, sovereignties, and democratic choices.
The Europe that will protect, that will build, that listens, not the one that imposes.
What happens if, by the way, I misheard what you said.
I thought you said 35 million.
It's 35 billion with a big extraordinary amount of money to be paid to this pharmaceutical giant without any bidding or any public scrutiny.
But what happens if she loses the vote of no confidence?
Is she out of office?
She would be, but it's not going to happen.
Nonetheless, she has taken a beating, public beating.
I was listening very closely to my friend Ray McGovern on his remarks from his first meetings in Germany, where he's now traveling and giving speeches.
He emphasized the fact that in Europe and in Germany in particular, censorship is much tighter than we had before Mr. Trump opened his mouth at the start of his first electoral campaign.
What you just have presented is astounding.
We haven't heard such frank speech in more than a decade here in Europe.
Now, who is that man?
And again, to drive the point home.
This is Fabrice Legieri.
He is the number three man in the Penns, Marine Le Pen's party, the national rally.
Now, was there coverage of this in European newspapers?
Almost none.
I live in Belgium.
The parliament is in Brussels.
The Soire, the French-speaking newspaper of record here in Belgium, had not a word about these proceedings.
Instead, their front page yesterday was telling us about the investigation that is now ongoing into misappropriation of funds by Le Pen's European Parliament members.
Wow.
You see the point?
Mr. Le Jerry.
Okay.
That is European censorship.
It is cutting off the public from what is happening under its nose.
So I urge everyone to go to YouTube and look up these speeches, because you will be astounded first to see the unraveling of the parties that make up the parliament.
We have here in Europe something that Musk would call uniparty.
The European People's Party, of which Madame von der Leyen is a member, is aligned.
That is a right-of-center party with biggest constituent membership in Germany, which is how she got elected to her position as president, is aligned with the socialists and Democrats, who are on slightly on the left.
The two of them vote together on almost everything.
In the present composition of the European Parliament, however, they are not a bloc.
They vote separately on some different issues.
And I can tell you that if you listen to the whole two hours and you hear what the socialists and Democrats said, they're voting against this motion of censure, but they didn't vote confidence in von der Leyen.
They accused her and the European People's Party of aligning with the far right, with people like the Penn's party, to pass legislation which the socialists object to.
Now, this is a situation that you have in Germany itself, where Merz's party voted with the alternative for Deutschland on certain measures of restricting immigration.
That's going on at the pan-European level here in the European Parliament.
You have other parties basically on the left, which are, of course, completely against von der Leyen.
Unfortunately, from my own experience, going back more than 10 years, when I was admitted to conferences within the European Parliament.
Professor, I'm going to have to stop you only because we have another commitment coming up in about 45 seconds.
But this is a fascinating subject matter.
Please keep watching it for us.
We'll look forward to seeing you next week.
Thanks so much.
Thank you.
Coming up later today at 11 this morning, Max Blumenthal at 1 this afternoon.
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson at 3 this afternoon.
▲
Export Selection