Russia’s Next Moves: today’s edition of Judging Freedom with Andrew Napolitano

It was an honor and a pleasure to join Judge Napolitano in a twenty minute or so discussion of latest developments on the Russian front and more broadly on European politics and the Middle East crisis, as we did today.

See

The youtube account of Judging Freedom today announces that its subscriber list has crossed the 400,000 threshold and I have little doubt that this will grow exponentially as he continues to add to his weekly interviews new and valuable opinion leaders who stand independent of the Biden administration narrative. These include former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman, who debuted this week, and Denis Kucinich, who will appear later today. Professors John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs, arms inspection officer Scott Ritter, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity co-founder Ray McGovern were already among the regular interviewees.

Full transcript of the interview below provided by a reader

Judge Andrew Napolitano: 0:32
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for "Judging Freedom". Today is Wednesday, July 3rd, 2024. From Brussels, Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us now. Professor Doctorow, it's a pleasure, my dear friend, as always. Thank you very much for all of these weekly segments together, particularly this week, which of course is a short week in America because tomorrow is Independence Day. We, of course, are independent from Great Britain and have been for 250 years. We're not independent from our own government. Another topic for another time. I just had to throw that in. But good day to you and welcome here, sir.

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
Well thanks so much.

Napolitano: 1:12
I thank you. I want to begin by talking about the concept of retaliation, Russian retaliation, whether immediate or down the road, whether violent or elsewhere for what happened on the beach in Sevastopol two Sundays ago, as well as the likelihood of Russian retaliation if the Israelis attack Hezbollah in a meaningful way.

1:40
Let's start with Ukraine. What is the feeling, as you perceive it, in the Kremlin for what happened at Sevastopol? Are they convinced this is an American attack on Russia, or do they believe it was just a one-off and a mistake?

Doctorow:
Well, they believe it was intentional by the United States. The United States enabled the Ukrainians with intelligence and with feeding in this data to the missiles for targeting. It could not be done by Ukrainians, since they don't have that technology. So, this was stated by President Putin, and if we had any doubts about the persistence of the United States in this very risky threat to Russia, yesterday, once again, the Pentagon gave its sanction to strikes by Ukraine on the Crimea, specifically Crimea.

So, the United States policy is clear. The Russian understanding of that policy is clear, and this is something which can explode at any time.

Napolitano: 2:55
What do you think President Putin will do? I mean, we know of this telephone conversation, surprisingly initiated by the Americans, between Secretary of Defense Austin and his counterpart in Russia. We understand that his counterpart in Russia, name escaping me, but you'll fill in the blank in a moment. His counterpart in Russia said, don't do it. Don't fly over the Black Sea. But what are they going to do? Shoot down drones or shoot down manned jets, shoot down everything, establish a no-fly zone?

Doctorow: 3:34
I think they will establish a no-fly zone, by the very threat that you've mentioned. I don't think they have to physically eliminate any given drone. But the United States was put on notice that the Russians are prepared to do so, and that's probably sufficient. As for Mr. Putin in general, he is a firm believer that revenge is a meal best served cold. I don't think there'll be any actions by the Russians which are not well prepared and which are not well considered in advance for every possible counter move by the states.

Napolitano: 4:14
Well, the Russians know that American military equipment is assembled and readied in Poland and Romania by American technicians and soldiers and locals. Do the Russians consider those facilities, again, which include American soldiers, fair game, a legitimate target after Sevastopol?

Doctorow: 4:41
Well, they've made it clear that they do consider these fair game, but again, they are not precipitate. They will move step by step, not to lose options along the way. And so, if they have not responded till now, it does not mean that they will not respond when they find the moment appropriate. And they have other means of responding in other areas and other geographies. So there's no reason to believe that Mr. Putin has abandoned his asymmetrical approach to any given threat from the United States. And we'll probably get to that question in a few minutes.

Napolitano: 5:24
Okay. What are the other means of responding that they have? Are you talking about military means or economic means or geopolitical means like the trip to North Korea?

Doctorow:
Well, I think all of the above. The Russians insist that they have the possibility of clawing back valued assets by the United States and its allies that are worth the same or more than the 350 billion dollars in Russian state assets that are frozen and are now facing the possibility of confiscation by the West. As regards military means, what has been rumored, and I think you're aware of it, what has been rumored in the last week or so is that the Russians have already shipped or are about to ship their hypersonic ship-killing missiles to the Houthis, that they are prepared, if necessary, to intervene in the Middle East, depending on Israel's level of attack on Hezbollah.

6:29
So the geography is variable, just that the Russian response to Sevastopol may be in Yemen, and not in Moldova or in Poland or Romania, as you were saying. They have their options.

Napolitano: 6:51
What is the Russian level of military preparedness? Would you call it a higher level of alert-- I don't know if I'm using the right phrase-- from and after Sevastopol? Are they doing things now that they weren't doing two weeks ago?

Doctorow:
No, I don't see any great change. They are pursuing their determined, progressive pushback on Ukrainian forces all across the line of confrontation. They are showing on television every day which village they have seized completely, which village they now partially occupy along 800 kilometers with certain areas of emphasis. And how they are using, for example, their position in the Kharkov region. And when you watch the Russian television, you understand that as its presentation by Western media is completely off base, that Russians never intended to seize Kharkov at this moment, and do not today.

8:00
They are clearing the area of its capabilities of striking the Belgorod region on the Russian side of the border. And they're doing it with daily effect and daily progress, so that at the present time artillery cannot be used, even some of the shorter-range missiles cannot be used to attack Belgorod. And they will keep on going in the same direction. They also are succeeding in removing from the rest of the line of confrontation the elite forces that Kiev still retains, so that the rest of the line of confrontation is substantially weakened. They have been dispatched in waves to protect Kharkov.

8:48
The Trump administration pulled the United States out of the intermediate range nuclear treaty. A lot of people on this show are still harshly critical of that. President Putin responded to it. I'd like your thoughts on his response. Cut number one.

Putin (English voice-over):
We declared in 2019 that we would neither manufacture nor deploy these missiles until the United States does so, in certain parts of the world. It is understood today that the United States not only manufactures these missile systems, but has also transported them to Europe for drills, specifically to Denmark. Recently, it was announced that they have arrived in the Philippines. It remains unclear if they've removed these missiles.

9:52
We need to respond to this situation and determine our next action steps. It appears that today, we will be discussing the Russian Federation's next moves concerning a one-sided halt on deploying land-based intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles.

Napolitano: 10:15
So, he's aware of what's in Denmark, it's very close to where he is. What is he going to do about it?

Doctorow:
Well, I watched your show yesterday with Scott Ritter, and Scott Ritter was directly involved in the creation of the treaty and in the implementation and supervision of the treaty's provisions in Russia. So, his remarks yesterday were comprehensive, and is a hard act to follow.

But I would like to introduce one element of this issue that Scott did not discuss and that your viewers should find of interest.

Napolitano:
Please do.

Doctorow: 11:04
Namely what was on Russian television last night: that these missiles in the medium range, this is something like 1,500 kilometers, and the Russians can position them in Yakutia, for example, and strike all of Alaska and probably the northwestern part of the United States, maybe out to California. So this is not just a question where Americans are an observer of what the Russians may or not do with similar missiles in the European theater of war. It has a direct impact on American security if the Russians pursue a 1,500 kilometer or more range into medium range missiles and plant them on the eastern shores of their enormous country.

Napolitano 11:56
We understand that the Defense Department is planning to have American troops in 12 to 15 bases in Finland along the 800-mile, more or less, common border that Finland has with Russia. I don't know if these are going to be new bases, expanded bases, if we're going to lease the space, if we're just going to show up and work with the Finnish troops, but how dangerous is that?

Doctorow? 12:24
It isn't. I think we have to go back a little bit. Because before Sweden became a member of NATO, Sweden had a similar arrangement with the United States. That's to say, all the Swedish military bases were accessible to United States forces in times of need, even though Sweden was not yet a member of NATO. So the Finns are doing the same thing. They are opening their facilities to Americans. That's not the same thing as saying that America is establishing military bases in Finland. In general, by joining NATO, Finland did the best job possible to undermine its own security. You've called attention to an 800-mile border, indeed. This is very similar in size and length to the border that Ukraine has with Russia -- the line of confrontation that that now separates Russia and Ukrainian forces. And note that the Ukrainians at the start of the conflict had 40 million population. Perhaps they now have 25 million population because so many people have fled. Nonetheless, they have let's say 20, 25 million population, and they are having a hard time maintaining that line.

13:45
When you take Finland, a 5, 6 million population, the chances of it defending an 800-mile or 1,200-kilometer line are nil. What is the United States going to do to fill in that space? It simply has opened a vast area of risk. Now, one of your previous guests mentioned the traveling across the Finnish border to Russia, which is not possible now for about nine months, because the Finns closed the border.

Nonetheless, the point was that many different frontier crossings existed, and I used them because until they shut it down last September, I traveled to Russia, to Petersburg, by this route, Brussels, Helsinki, and by bus across to St. Petersburg. That is the situation that was accessible after the ending of direct flights between Western Europe and Russia. Now I had a chance to observe what the Russians were doing on their side of the border.

Napolitano: 14:49
What did you see?

Doctorow:
They were building a superhighway to the Finnish border. Now that was-- made sense while there were still reasonable relations and a good deal of transit trade from Western Europe to Russia by Finland. It made a different sense after these relations soured and became very bitter. The Russians have a magnificent thoroughfare for tanks and any other heavy equipment they want to direct to the Finnish border right now. I don't think the Finns have anything similar.

Napolitano: 15:22
Let's talk about Hezbollah and the likely Russian response or probable Russian response -- you choose the word that you think is more appropriate. What do you think will happen if the Israelis mount a serious invasion of southern Lebanon in order to attempt to defeat-- I think, suicidally, but you know this better than I-- the Hezbollah forces?

Doctorow:
Well, the involvement of Iran has already been flagged by government spokesmen for Iran in the past couple of days. That is to say, Iran is not ready to watch Hezbollah take a beating by Israelis. Iran will intervene. And by the same logic, Russia cannot entertain Iran being battered by Israel. So, the Russians will intervene. This will make it a region-wide war.

16:24
In the meantime, as I mentioned a couple of minutes ago, it is rumored and good reason to believe that the Russians are shipping their hypersonic Zircon missiles to the Houthis, who seem to be very proficient in using missiles. Depends on the quality of the missile. What they've had till now coming from Iran or their own homemade drones were insufficient in power to cause great damage to US naval vessels in the region, in particular to the aircraft carriers in the region, even though there are rumors that the Eisenhower had been hit by this or that.

However, if the Houthis are now being given Zircon-- The American Navy in the Mediterranean and in the Red Sea can be sent to the bottom by the Houthis, using outside-supplied weapons and acting as proxies, in the same way as Ukraine is being used as a proxy in the war on Russia.

17:16
So here what Mr. Putin was intimating has a very practical application, and I'd say there's a definite logic to such a Russian involvement if Israel dares to attack in a full-blown war the Hezbollah and southern Lebanon.

Napolitano:
Here's Prime Minister Netanyahu, who doesn't seem to fear the type of resistance you expect the Houthis and Hezbollah to present him. This is about a minute and a half long, but he lists all the places that he plans to engage in a fight. Cut number five.

Netanyahu (speaking in English): 18:16
And Iran is fighting us on a seven-front war, obviously Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, the militias in Iraq and Syria, Judea, Samaria, West Bank, Iran itself. They'd like to topple Jordan, and their goal is to have a combined ground offensive from the various fronts, coupled with a combined missile bombardment.

We have to – we've been given the opportunity to scuttle it, and we will. The first requirement is to cut that end, Hamas. People who do this thing to us are not going to be there. We'll have a long battle. I don't think it's that long, but we'll get rid of them. We also have to deter the other elements of the Iran terror axis, but we have to deal with the axis.

The axis doesn't threaten only us, it threatens you. It's on the march to conquer the Middle East, conquer the Middle East, conquer, that means actually conquer, conquer Saudi Arabia, conquer the Arabian Peninsula, it's just a question of time. And what's standing in their way is the small Satan, that's us, on the road to the middle- sized Satan, that's the Europeans. They're always offended when I tell them that. You're the great Satan, not them. OK. And we have to stop them.

Napolitano: 19:53
Do you think he understands the forces that are arrayed-- the power of the forces that are arrayed against him? Do you think Israel can possibly fight this seven-front war and expect to survive?

Doctorow:
No, I don't. I think he's determined to be Israel's last prime minister. What we just heard was as detached from reality as anything we've heard in recent months coming from Mr. Blinken or any of the other advisers to Joe Biden. They are living in a bubble. He is taking with every escalation and widening of war, he is taking Israel closer to the brink of utter destruction. So, I very much regret that there is no resistance [within] Israel to Mr. Netanyahu, no substantial resistance to bring him down, because the country is going to go to a terrible fate if he persists, and is allowed to persist, in what we just heard.

Napolitano: 21:00
Let's talk politics for a couple of minutes. In Europe-- anybody can predict what's going to happen tomorrow in Great Britain, but we already have substantial results in France. You kow, how do you read that? Where do you see that going? Does President Macron stay in office, or does he suddenly take back everything he said about sending troops to Ukraine?

Doctorow:
Well, I don't think he-- stay in office is his determination, but how he intends to use that office is a matter of conjecture. We've heard from Marine Le Pen in the last day or so that he, that is Macron, intends to invoke essentially dictatorial powers to maintain his position above all other political elements in France. If he does that, then he may meet with a very unhappy end. I think he should replay the last days of Ceausescu.

France is not Germany. France is not the United States. France has a revolutionary past which is very much a part of the present. And what he is doing is holding out a red flag to those who remember that past. What we read in Europe is that Marine Le Pen has a very good chance of reaching that absolute majority in the French lower house in the upcoming elections. We also read that there is a major effort by the forces of Macron, by his men, and by elements in the left and what remains of the center, like the Republicans, to create a dike against, a dam against the Rassemblement National, the RN of Marine Le Pen.

22:56
However, this tactic, which worked in past elections in France, is very problematic today, considering that it's exactly the center that has been so battered. The fallback position to keep Marine Le Pen out of power is to unite with the left. And the left is even more repugnant and dangerous for French conservatives, for French status-quo seekers, than Marine Le Pen.

Napolitano:
Ah! It's almost like, it's almost-- can draw an analogy to Prime Minister Netanyahu. Here you have two people doing almost anything to stay in office, no matter how irrational it is or how dangerous it is to the stability of their two countries.

Doctorow:
Exactly, and the French have a term for this: it's "va banque", that is "go for broke". And that's what these two gentlemen are doing. They are looking to salvage their own reputations and what powers they can hold at the expense of their own countries. They're putting their countries at enormous risk. That's unjustified. In the case of Netanyahu, he has, we may assume, a majority of the population willing to play his game.

In the case of Macron, it's not at all the case. If he has 10 or 15 percent of the French population behind him, that will be a lot. And that is not enough to hold back the tide of the coming revolution with a small r, in which the center is turned out of power, and his plans for France's leadership of the EU are canceled.

Napolitano: 24:45
Professor Doctorow, thank you very much for your time and for your analysis, as usual. I don't know if it's a holiday in Europe, but of course it is here, and you're American, so happy Independence Day. We'll look forward to seeing you next week, my dear friend.

Doctorow:
Thanks again. And yes, we do celebrate.

Napolitano:
Oh, good. Good. All the best. Thank you.

Doctorow:
OK. Bye.

Napolitano:
Bye. Coming up later today: at 11 o'clock this morning, Professor John Mearsheimer; at noon, Congressman Dennis Kucinich; at 2 p.m., Colonel Douglas McGregor; at 3 p.m., Phil Giraldi; at 4 p.m., Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson: and at 5 p.m., the inimitable Max Blumenthal.

25:31
Judge Napolitano for "Judging Freedom".