Transcript of 'Judging Freedom': edition of 17 October

Transcription below by a reader

Judge Andrew Napolitano: 0:32
Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, October 17th, 2024. Our dear friend and colleague, Professor Gilbert Doctorow, joins us now. Professor Doctorow, always a pleasure.

Thank you for your time and thank you for the rich research and ideas that you bring to this program. I have a lot of questions for you about Israel and Iran and Russia and Ukraine. They all come back to your field of specialty, which is Russia. What is the current relationship between the Kremlin and Tehran?

Doctorow: 1:19
That is really a very important subject, which nobody has an answer to. The, we speculate, and I will give you my speculation. The-- nobody has a-- well, the Israelis, maybe Mossad, has a microphone under the Pezechkian's pillow, but I don't. What I can say is that the Russians have good reason to be skeptical, to be cautious in concluding any mutual defense agreements with Iran, simply because Mr. Pezechkian, the present president-- the one who came into power after the death or murder, depending on the point of view, of the former president Raisi-- he was put in power from the faction that we would call the comprador, you can call it that, or you can call it fifth column as the Russians like to call it. This is a branch of the political movements that is pro-Western.

2:22
They have either wives who are from the West, or they have investments in the West, or they have come through American or other European brainwashing programs; but they are sympathetic to the West and regretful that they're stuck with, the country is stuck with, China and Russia. These are people who put the present president into power. Well, he was elected, but he was promoted by them. The Russians have good reason to be suspicious of him in general, and they had proof that their skepticism or their concern was real and not imaginary when it came out that he had been using back channels to the United States, who deceived him and who leaked information about these back channels to the press, which was terribly embarrassing for him, because he was shown to be acting in violation of his constitution, where foreign policy is set by the Ayatolla, not by the president.

3:27
This background of a man who is coming now seeking eagerly a defense agreement with Russia, but who has very recently, two weeks ago, was hoping to cut a deal with the States. Therefore, why should Russia, at a time when it's heavily militarily in Ukraine, spare resources and take risks of a worsening confrontation with the United States because of the position it takes over Iran?

Napolitano: 4:01
Hasn't Russia supplied Iran with substantial air defense equipment, high-end state-of-the-art air defense equipment?

Doctorow;
I know that some of my peers, some of the very widely respected commentators, military experts, of which I am not one, have said just what you said, that there were such supplies, that there are planes that have been going in and out with great frequency between Russia and Tehran, delivering such equipment. I can tell you that officially, nothing has been delivered. If you look at what Russia is saying officially, nothing has been delivered. Has something been delivered? I don't know. But then I would say nobody knows for sure.

Napolitano: 4:49
Are there Russian technicians and soldiers on the ground in Iran as far as you know?

Doctorow:
If indeed equipment was delivered, this is high-end equipment as you just said, and it is almost certain that Russian technicians would be accompanying this equipment for training purposes and/or to man that equipment, just as the 100 American soldiers have been dispatched to Israel to man the THAAD high-end equipment that was just delivered there. This is the natural order of things. But that brings us back to the first question, what has been delivered?

Napolitano: 5:25
Well, is the mutual defense pact-- I'll use the word "pact" rather than "treaty". I think that's a word you prefer. If you prefer "treaty", let me know. The mutual defense pact or agreement that had been talked about between Tehran and the Kremlin-- is that now on the back burner, or has it been signed, and we don't know about it? What is the status of it? And maybe the easier question to answer is: if Israel and the United States attack Iran, what will Russia do?

Doctorow: 5:57
We don't know. I'll take the last question first. We don't know what they'll do. It depends on what kind of an attack, how severe, how damaging it is to Iran. And so it's unforeseeable what the Russian response will be. Let's take a step back to when you say, "Oh, this has been signed off." Let's remember what leader we're dealing with in Russia and what procedures we're dealing with in Russia. It may come as shock to many people, particularly those who are listening in on this, but not as subscribers, to understand that Russia is a country under law.

6:39
Under Russian law, you not only have the signature of the top executive, you have the ratification by the legislature. And this is not an empty remark I'm making. The last two days have seen the introduction to the state Duma of the proposed agreement or the signed agreement with North Korea, which includes a very substantial section on mutual defense. That has to be ratified by the Duma to be enforced.

So this country is a country under law. Mr. Putin is a lawyer. And the question of what is going to happen with the bond, what obligations Russia has, that is really up in the air. We can't answer that, but I'd like to point out Russia's rather equivocal position in the Middle East in general.

7:33
What about Syria? Why didn't the Russians deliver, or they delivered the S-300s to Syria, why don't they let them use them against Israel? This is an open question. I don't have an answer to it, but I do point out the question exists. Russia has so far been opposed to direct military confrontation with Israel, on its own or on the part of its immediate protégés like Syria.

Napolitano: 8:04
I know you're not a military expert, but can you opine as to whether Iran is vulnerable to an Israeli attack?

Doctorow:
Well, I've listened to others who are military experts. In fact, I would say that the most, for me, the most impressive was Scott Ritter, who really has done a lot of homework on this question: what it takes, what type of capabilities, what type of equipment you need to perform an attack on the various nuclear installations or major infrastructure in Israel. I was very impressed by what he had to say about that, how very difficult it is. And this, in addition to the remarks I've heard from my colleague Ray McGovern on what considerations the Pentagon may be holding back an Israeli attack on Iran.

8:59
These are big factors. The technical difficulties of it, the risks that Israel would take with or without American assistance because of the technical abilities of Iran by itself, plus the intelligence capabilities that Russia would add to the AWACs, that you can be sure they would lend to the Iranians. So it is a very difficult mission to undertake, and it is being held back for political reasons, as Ray has very well set out. The people in the Pentagon understand perfectly well the complexity and the risks, the high risks of failure in such a mission.

Napolitano: 9:39
Where is the EU as an entity? Where is NATO as an entity? Where are individual European countries-- you're in Brussels, I think-- on the Israeli killing of innocents in Lebanon and Gaza, which is now, to me, radically out of control.

Doctorow: 10:05
Well, I think Lebanon was the tripwire. Lebanon was a tripwire for Iran. Their patience ran out when the attacks took place in Beirut and in southern Lebanon. And Lebanon was a tripwire for Europeans. Countries like France, which have a long tradition of close relations with Lebanon, and other countries in Europe, which are-- all right; let's call them racist. We can discuss this, what emotions lie behind the reaction of various countries to the attack on Lebanon. But what I wanted to say is that they are co-religionists.

10:42
There is a substantial Christian population in Lebanon. The country is split and has been for decades between Islam and Christianity. This has been a fault line aside from other fault lines in Lebanon that's led to a succession of civil wars and great destruction. Nonetheless, for the outside world there is a substantial Christian population which is being attacked in the same way as the Islamic population, when you have indiscriminate bombing of civilian districts by the Israeli air force. And therefore, those countries which in the past had a co-religionist affiliation or an imperial affiliation in the Levant with Lebanon, they are aligned now with increasing loudness, vociferousness, against the rampage of Israel in the region. Now, that splits Europe.

Napolitano: 11:49
Is it the fact that half of Lebanon is Christian? Or is it that the Israelis have attacked UNIFIL, including French, Chinese, and Irish-- threatened to, and I don't think they actually attacked the Irish-- peacekeepers, that [has] animated Spain, Italy, Great Britain, and France?

Doctorow: 12:15
That's a major contributing factor to the split in Europe and to revulsion among the countries you've named at what Israel is now perpetrating in Lebanon. It has the benefit of being genuinely neutral xxxxx. We're not speaking now about favoring one religion over another as the martyrs under Israeli bombs. We're speaking now about the whole international community and the value of international law, which is being violated with every day and every attack that Israel makes on UNIFIL and its installations.

Napolitano: 13:00
Switching gears, Professor, what is the status of the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk as we speak?

Doctorow:
As of yesterday, there was very extensive reporting on various programs of Russian state television. I'm watching particularly "The Great Game", but there are [others] also on state news. There was a considerable discussion of this, and they can allow themselves that, because they know that they are in the end game, that they are victorious and they're utterly crushing the Ukrainians and their foreign advisors in Kursk. Now there are several factors that should be mentioned here to better understand what's going on. One is climate. We're now in autumn. Autumn brings with it a certain number of features that change possibilities on the battlefield.

13:56
First of them is fog. These, the birdies, the drones, don't fly in fog. Therefore, the nature of the war, particularly in Kursk right now, has changed from the battle of the drones to the artillery battle. And in the artillery battle, we all know very well, the Russians vastly outpowered the Ukrainians and they are crushing them, killing them. In this respect, there's a second climatic factor and seasonal factor: rain.

14:36
The real mud hasn't set in yet, but it is developing. The Russians claim that they now have taken back one half of the territory that the Ukrainians seized in their initial incursion. They also claim that they now have either occupation of or control, reconnaissance control of every road in that territory. What that means is that the Ukrainians, who still have anything resembling motorized units, are now forced to go off road. Off road means that these wonderful NATO personnel carriers sink. They are stuck in mud. And you can't stay in them very long if they're stuck in mud, because you'll be blown to bits.

Napolitano; 15:29
Are the Russians, excuse me, the Ukrainians surrounded by Russian troops, or do they still have access to food, water, fuel, medical supplies and ammunition from Ukraine?

Doctorow:
None of the above. The Russians, as I said, the very first military operation they made with respect to Kursk was to try to seal it off. That is to say, their heavy bombing was concentrated on the border to ensure that there would be no assembling of food, weapons, men, for relief of those who were in the occupied territory of Kursk. They have bombed everything, anything that moved. Therefore-- and the second, this is a very important part of their, of what they're doing there-- they said openly yesterday that they are not allowing anyone to leave. Their intention is to kill everyone of the Ukrainians and their foreign advisors who still find themselves in the territory of Kursk.

Napolitano: 16:38
Including the Americans?

Doctorow:
Well, they're indifferent, a matter of indifference. Anyone who is there will be murdered.

Napolitano:
I'd like you to listen to a president, I almost called him professor. He's not even the president of Ukraine, but we're calling him president. I'd like you to listen to President Zelensky from Monday, making a rather extraordinary claim involving North Korea, and I'd like your thoughts on it. Chris, cut number five:

Zelensky: 17:10 [voice-over translation]
There are some additional issues that need to be agreed upon with our partners, but our partners have all the necessary potential, and it is entirely realistic to strengthen our state's positions, Ukraine's positions, in the way necessary for a just peace. And we need to act right now to prevent Russia and its accomplices from adapting to our capabilities. We see an increasing alliance between Russia and regimes like North Korea. This is no longer just about transferring weapons. It is actually about transferring people from North Korea to the occupying military forces.

17:43
Obviously, in such circumstances, our relations with partners need to develop further. The frontline needs more support. When we talk about giving Ukraine greater long-range capabilities and more decisive supplies for our forces, it is not just a list of military equipment. It is about increasing the pressure on the aggressor, pressure that will be stronger than what Russia can handle.

Napolitano: 18:04
There's a fair amount to unpack there, but to me the most startling is either preposterous or wildly true: are North Korean troops training with Russians and preparing to participate with the Russian troops in the invasion of the disputed areas of Ukraine?

Doctorow: 18:29
Not that I'm aware of. There is this cooperation agreement, mutual defense pact, that is being ratified and is being already partially implemented, but it does not foresee, at least as it's been discussed among Russian politicians, it is not foresee the presence of troops from North Korea, either within Russia itself to relieve Russia's soldiers, or in the area of the special military operation.

What may be developing, what was talked about most within Russia, was bringing in workers, skilled workers, from North Korea to assist in the reconstruction of the territory that was Ukrainian in these four oblasts, Kherson, Zaporizhzhya, Donetsk and Luhansk, to participate in a very big reconstruction effort that's ongoing. That is entirely possible. But troops, no, the Russians don't need that.

Napolitano: 19:37
In your view, when will either the Ukrainian military or the Ukrainian government under President Zelensky collapse?

Doctorow:
Well, that's unforeseeable. We'd all hope it would be tomorrow, but it is difficult to say what will push it over the edge. One thing that will push it over the edge is November 5th if Mr. Trump wins. Then a military coup against Zelensky is entirely foreseeable.

20:08
But if Kamala wins, that can be more or less put to one side, and we have an indefinite date for the overthrow of this regime. The Russians, when they show clips like you just did, particularly in the last couple of days when he's appearing before the Rada, they speak about the president who has passed his sell-by date, speaking to the parliament that has passed its sell-by date. They don't-- they're in a good mood; they feel very comfortable with themselves, I mean the Russian political elites, and they are very satisfied that things are going their way. But that does not answer the question that you've posed, where and when will this war end? Will it end at the Dnieper?

21:01
What kind of a peace is Mr. Putin prepared to accept? That is a matter of considerable dispute among fellow commentators. And I have in mind particularly the strong critics of Mr. Putin, both Paul Craig Roberts and John Helmer, the longest-working journalist in Moscow. They believe that Mr. Putin will not pursue to the end, the goals of taming Ukraine and getting rid of foreign presence there. These questions are debatable. Nobody has a firm answer. I don't know how it will end, but I do say that it is reasonable to expect that Mr. Putin will not push for what some of the more aggressive nationalists like Dmitry Rogozin, who was a former ambassador of Russia here in Brussels to NATO, are calling for, which is namely that Russia go to the Polish border.

22:17
I don't believe that's in the cards. The Russian power structure is such, the vertical power structure is such, that Mr. Putin calls the shots. I don't believe any challenge from the military is worth discussing. And Mr. Putin is a pragmatist who looks beyond battlefield victories to victories in the war. Victory in the war will not come with taking the border to Poland. It'll just be the beginning of the next war.

Napolitano: 22:49
I want to bring you back to the North Korea issue and read what is breaking news from Newsweek. I'm going to read it literally.

Newsweek:
"Some 18 North Korean soldiers are believed to have deserted the Russian front line with Kremlin fighters reportedly searching for them. The troops were deployed in Russia's Kursk and Bryansk oblasts about four miles from the border with Ukraine when they deserted, the public broadcasting company of Ukraine reported. Intelligence officials cited by the broadcaster said that Russia is searching for the North Korean soldiers, while commanders are trying to conceal the desertion from higher-ups."

Napolitano: 23:36
I mean, could this get any crazier, if true?

Doctorow:
If true, I don't know. I would take it as something to be investigated, anything that comes out of Ukrainian news sources. I don't say it's impossible, but I don't think it has any greater value. You can speak about how many Ukrainians are deserting to the Russians. The fact that they could be North Koreans, well, stranger things have happened in life. But that is not the same as saying that there are 10,000 North Koreans now acting as a foreign legion in the Ukraine war.

24:16
These are very different numbers. 16, I think this is equally rumored 10,000.

Napolitano:
Well, perhaps by the next time we chat, there'll be some clarity on all of these issues, but one can only hope. Professor Doctorow, a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for joining us. Have a great weekend. I hope you'll come back with us next week.

Doctorow:
My pleasure.

Napolitano:
Thank you. We have a full day coming up for you. At 11 o'clock this morning, Matt Hoh. At one this afternoon, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson. At three this afternoon, Professor John Mearsheimer. At four this afternoon, Aaron Mate. At 5.30 this afternoon, from "Midnight in Moscow", Pepe Escobar.

25:00
Judge Napolitano for "Judging Freedom".