Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano - Prof. Gilbert Doctorow : Alaska Preview

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 14, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano

24:19

Prof. Gilbert Doctorow : Alaska Preview

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
	Today is Thursday, August 14th, 2025.
	Professor Gilbert Doctorow will be with us in just a moment with his preview on what we can expect out of Alaska tomorrow.
	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.
	Always a pleasure to chat with you.
	We are, of course, on the eve of what might be a monumental, consequential meeting or a dud.
	We don't know.
	And I want to explore your thoughts on the European perception of what's going to happen and your own analysis.
	Do you think that tomorrow in Anchorage, Alaska, when President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump meet, this will be more reality or shadow play?
	It's impossible to say, frankly.
	The indications from the Russians were, as I indicated in writings earlier this week, very positive.
	Russian state television, Russian news I'm speaking about, not panelists, but what the official Russian state news is saying, what their lead journalists in the States, their bureau chief in the States, Valentin Bogdanov, was saying on air, was very optimistic.
	Very pleased that it's in Alaska, precisely in Alaska, with reference to the heritage.
	And this is very relevant to a possible outcome in Ukraine.
	Let's remember that Alaska was purchased, it wasn't conquered.
	And today, this is, what, 160 years after the purchase, there is still a Russian ethnic community, Russian tradition, Russian Orthodox Church active there.
	And Mr. Bogdanov interviewed the church representatives, interviewed congregants, interviewed descendants of the original Russian settlers in Alaska.
	So there was a lot of excitement about it being in Alaska and finally having this opportunity to resolve the Ukrainian crisis among many other things.
	However, what I heard yesterday, this is in Western media primarily, about The video conference that Donald Trump had with the Europeans and with Zelensky made me very concerned that this optimism on the Russian side may be unjustified and that Mr. Trump has been turned,
	turned by the Europeans, not because of persuasive arguments, but because of the political calculations, how much weight they have, what influence they're having on Congress and so forth.
	That's for him to determine.
	So what I have in mind particularly is his statement to Zelensky yesterday, which is widely reported, that he would not be discussing territorial exchanges with Mr. Putin.
	He's listening to the demands of the European leaders that he threaten Putin with dramatic sanctions if in this meeting on Friday Putin does not agree to a media ceasefire without conditions.
	This sounded very much like he was withdrawing the basis for this meeting having been set.
	Yes.
	No, I just listened last half hour to what Russia state television is saying.
	Again, the news reporting.
	You can take this to be the Kremlin speaking.
	This is not some panelists.
	It's not some one or two Duma members.
	It's the official Russian news.
	And they remain optimistic.
	They were telling us who the five members of the delegation are.
	And you look at the names, and it's indicative that the Russian position has not changed from what Witkov discussed with Putin when they agreed to the summit.
	You have Mr. Dmitriev president, who represents the possibility of commercial renewal in relations between the United States and Russia.
	You have Belussov, the Minister of Defense there, but I believe not just for the technicalities of ending the war and introducing a truce, but also for what is mentioned at the same time in the Russian reporting, the resumption of arms limitation talks and the bigger security issues across Europe.
	You've got Mr. Silvanov there, the Minister of Finance, presumably there to discuss how they're going to resolve the issue of bringing Russia back into the world financial system.
	So there is an basis optimism that continues on the Russian side, although one panelist who was introduced said that, yes, this can end very well, and it also can end terribly bringing us onto a path to a very big war.
	I thought of you before the sun came up today in the east coast of the United States when I saw the headline of the newspaper you and I both devour each day, which is the Financial Times.
	And the headline is that Trump threatens, quote, severe consequences, quote, if the war is not ended immediately.
	Now, how does the Kremlin react to that?
	Do they say, oh, well, it's just Donald and domestic politics, or do they perceive this as a threat?
	Well, from what I just said about the latest reporting, and I say that has to be taken as the voice of the Kremlin.
	When someone like Valentin Bogdanov speaks, he is speaking for the Kremlin.
	The assumption is, let's go for it, because if they believed what is in the Financial Times today, the logical thing would be that Mr. Putin would say it's cancelled.
	I didn't hear you mention when you listed who was going to be there, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
	Is that just a given that he would be there?
	Oh, yeah, no, there are five people, and Vladrov is one of them.
	It's Belusov, Ushakov, Dmitriev, Lavrov, and Solanov.
	Those are the five.
	And so the U.S., we don't know who they are.
	We could guess who they are, but the U.S. will have five as well, I would imagine.
	Yes, and the Russians are assuming that Hexeth will be there to meet his counterpart, Belusov.
	Right, right.
	Do you view this as sort of the prequel to a substantive meeting in Moscow later this year, sort of an agreement to agree at some time in the future?
	The President of the United States hinted at that yesterday.
	He didn't say Moscow, but he said Russia, and he said another meeting, and he said soon.
	Now I know he changes his mind all the time, and he often appears to be speaking without thinking.
	I'm just wondering if you think the Russians view this as the first of a series of meetings.
	Oh, absolutely the case.
	The Russian assumption is that the meeting in Russia, presumably in Moscow, would follow very quickly.
	And it would probably include the representatives from the EU and from Mr. Zelensky.
	And the purpose would be to get signatures on what is being hashed out, what is being agreed on a bilateral basis tomorrow.
	That is all very optimistic.
	If tomorrow's meeting does not end in something consequential, I think there will be no follow-up meeting and we will be on a warpath.
	Here's a synopsis, a montage, if you will, of what the European leaders are saying.
	This does not to me seem very optimistic about tomorrow, but I want your read on it.
	Chris Cut number three.
	The question of Ukrainian territory can and will only be negotiated by the Ukrainian president.
	This is the position that we support, and it has been very clearly expressed by President Trump.
	There could be no negotiations about Ukraine without Ukraine.
	And that's been a long-standing principle.
	I told the U.S. President and all our European colleagues that Putin is bluffing.
	He is trying to put pressure before the meeting in Alaska along all parts of the Ukrainian front.
	Russia is trying to show that it can occupy all of Ukraine.
	We consider the consultations requested by the Europeans as politically and practically insignificant.
	If the first one goes okay, we'll have a quick second one.
	I would like to do it almost immediately.
	If the second meeting takes place, now there may be no second meeting because if I feel that it's not appropriate to have it because I didn't get the answers that we have to have, then we're not going to have a second meeting.
	Russia's position remains unchanged.
	And it was voiced in this very hall just over a year ago.
	For those who are taking the program audio only, it was President Macron of France, Prime Minister Starmer of Great Britain, President Zelensky, a spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry, President Trump, President Trump again, and that same Russian spokesperson.
	I'm just wondering if whatever happened in this private phone call with European leaders yesterday didn't change President Trump's mind on whether or not he can actually bring about an end result without the Russians maintaining and acquiring legal control over eastern Ukraine.
	They're just not going to give that up militarily, politically, or diplomatically.
	Don't you agree?
	Yes, I agree.
	And I believe I want to be factual and not judgmental.
	When I say the following, Mr. Trump is lying to somebody.
	Either he's lying to Mr. Putin or he is lying to the Europeans.
	I choose to believe that he was lying to the Europeans because there's no point in his lying to Putin.
	Putin will then leave.
	The war will accelerate in the most dramatic way and Ukraine will be utterly ground into the dirt.
	It is widely unknown that the Russians made a 21-kilometer advance in a part of the critical part of the line of confrontation in the last day.
	That is an indication of what they are capable of doing when they want to.
	And I'd like to Bring this out because some of my colleagues have been saying repeatedly that the Russians follow the rules of war of attrition, that they don't change the speed of their fighting, regardless of what, and they will get what they want in the end.
	I don't agree at all.
	They do change the way they're fighting according to the political situation, as one would expect and hope.
	And I believe that they will now change to a much more dramatic destruction of Ukraine because the latest discussion is taking moving into Nikolaevsky and Odessa.
	And that will be the utter end of this war.
	I will tell you that Colonel Douglas McGregor agrees with you 100%.
	In fact, Colonel McGregor told us yesterday that this last Farage, Farago, whatever you want to call it, this last movement of the Russian military was so profound, he referred to the Ukrainian military as effectively obliterated, leading us to believe that if another encounter occurred like whatever happened in the past week, there'd be very little left at all of the Ukrainian military.
	Surely, Heg Seth has told Trump, or Trump knows from some other source, that this is happening.
	I'd like to assume that Mr. Trump is well informed.
	The problems that we see in his behavior come out of the stresses he's under.
	And as I say, he had to lie to somebody because the positions are diametrically opposed.
	I choose to believe that he was lying to the Europeans.
	What would he gain by lying to the Europeans?
	Why doesn't he just say, look, guys, Crimea and the 4-0 blasts are going to Russia, like it or not?
	It's a reality of the battlefield.
	I'm trying to stop further killing.
	I can't undo history.
	Shouldn't he say that to Starmer and Mertz and Macron?
	It's too early.
	He has to see what he's going to get from Putin face to face.
	That's the logic.
	I think we'll hear what you just said in a week or so.
	But until they sign the deal, until they have a handshake on this, I don't think Trump would dare so alienate all of the Europeans in a public way and expose himself to violent attacks, political attacks, of course, in the States.
	If he has a successful conclusion of meeting with Putin, if he's satisfied that this will work out in a way that is an off-ramp for the states and is not humiliating in any way, and Mr. Putin is very skillful in negotiating that sort of an end, then I think he'll do just what you said, only a week from now.
	Here's the president's spokesperson.
	I'm not fond of quoting her because she sometimes is separated from the truth.
	Nevertheless, she is revealing what she understands from the National Security Council the Russians want.
	Cut number five.
	The Kern is expressing interest that Friday's meeting will move beyond just terms to end the war into improving bilateral relations.
	There's talk over how they're interested in potentially restoring direct flights between Russia and the United States.
	Is President Trump open to those kind of peripheral conversations, or is this directly focused on ending the war in Ukraine?
	I think this conversation on Friday is focused on ending the war in Ukraine as far as the president's perspective goes.
	Those conversations, I think the president is interested in having, but his main priority right now is ending this war and to stop the killing that has gone on for far too long.
	I don't know if that's the case.
	Don't the Russians, aren't they coming to Anchorage with a much bigger agenda than just ending the war?
	No, that's the case.
	And of course, Levin was lying.
	But I don't, again, I'm not being judgmental.
	That's what you do.
	Wait a minute.
	You're accusing people of lying, but you're not being judgmental.
	In statesmanship, Machiavelli told us this.
	So it's nothing new under the sun here.
	And she's doing what she has to do.
	She's buying time.
	But I think that the question was rather frivolous.
	The discussion will be much more important than whether or not flights are renewed or whether levies will be raised on this or that article of trade.
	It's about this whole, will they renew the new star treaty that expires in 26?
	It's about prohibition on various new and extremely frightening means of warfare that both sides are developing.
	It's these things.
	Can I throw another issue out there?
	The 350 billion, I don't know if it's dollars or rubles, in Russian assets frozen in Western banks.
	Now, who controls those, the United States or the Europeans?
	What banks have all that money?
	I think 250 billion of it is in Brussels in an organization called Euroclear.
	I think about 50 billion is in one or more banks in the States.
	And that is very important that you raise this question of that money.
	Nobody's talking about it.
	And it's not because they're stupid or they know about it.
	Everyone understands that if there is a settlement of this war, a decision has to be made of what to do with that money.
	I think at the appropriate moment, it will enter into negotiations over ending the war.
	Because with that money made available, say, mostly to Ukraine, partly to Russia, for purposes of rebuilding the war-ravaged territories, and they're on both sides of the border, of course.
	Don Boss also had great devastation.
	So that money could do wonders to restore the damage, to pay the widows and the children of the fallen Ukrainian soldiers, in particular, who have not been compensated by the Ukrainian government.
	This could be the basis for overthrowing Mr. Zelensky, because it would be reasonable to put this to a vote in Ukraine.
	Do you want to take the 350 billion and end the war on Russia's terms, or do you want to continue to get massacred?
	Oh, I can't imagine.
	I mean, the vote would be overwhelming to end the war, would it not?
	It would, and that's precisely why not a single European is touching that subject.
	Wow.
	Here's, I mentioned this to you earlier, but here's Trump's threat from yesterday, Chris number four.
	Will Russia face any consequences if Vladimir Putin does not agree to stop the war after your meeting on Friday?
	Yes, they will.
	What will there be?
	There will be consequences.
	I don't have to say there will be very severe consequences.
	Does that resonate with the Kremlin?
	There will be very severe consequences, or do they not care what they perceive him to be saying for American domestic political consumption?
	I think it goes into the latter category.
	After all, this question is raised as if we have no memory whatsoever.
	Russia has been under severe sanctions since 2012, when the Magnitsky Act was voted by Congress in the States.
	After 2014 and the Russian acquisition or seizure of Crimea, further dramatic sanctions.
	In 2022, Newlands sanctions from hell were imposed.
	And they're telling us there'll be new consequences and sanctions.
	It's utterly not ridiculous.
	You have to really be brain-dead to accept that as a reality.
	But if that's what the Financial Times wants to talk about, to divert their audience from reality, so let it be.
	But let it not divert us from reality.
	Before we conclude, will you venture a prediction?
	I would tend to believe the Russian optimism.
	They're going to too much preparation.
	They have very heavily committed the Russian nation, the population that listens to television, to a success.
	And it's still not too late for them to say, we've been had, we're not going.
	And they're not doing that.
	They're going in full force.
	So I believe there will be a success, and the Europeans will be left to sort things out among themselves because they will be the big losers.
	I want to play a clip from President Zelensky From yesterday, basically saying it is impossible to talk about Ukraine without Ukraine.
	Cut number six.
	It is impossible to talk about Ukraine without Ukraine, and no one will accept that.
	So, the conversation between Putin and Trump may be important for their bilateral track, but they cannot agree on anything about Ukraine without us.
	I truly believe and hope that the U.S. president understands and realizes that.
	Foresee any circumstances under which Trump, which he can legally do, terminates all aid, military aid, to Ukraine.
	Oh, yes, if he reaches what is a sensible solution to this war, perhaps and hopefully, including what I just mentioned about turning it from a military conquest into a real estate transaction, money changing hands, then we come back to who is Ukraine.
	It's certainly not the man who was before the microphone.
	He is a usurper.
	He is not constitutionally the president of Ukraine.
	And if there were to be a settlement agreed between the United States and Russia, logically, they should take this to the UN and say, let's have a UN supervised vote in Ukraine.
	That would be a good solution.
	Got it.
	Professor Doctorow, thank you very much.
	We'll have much to talk about.
	I mean, Leslie is an absolute dud.
	We'll have much to talk about, which I don't think we'll have much to talk about next week.
	Thank you for my schedule.
	All the best to you, my friend.
	Bye-bye.
	Bye.
	Coming up later today on the same topic.
	What else is there to talk about right now?
	I realize there's other things going on, but this is captivating the world's interest.

▲