Transcript of 'Judging Freedom' edition of 19 November 2024

Transcript submitted by a reader

Napolitano: 0:32
Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for "Judging Freedom". Today is Tuesday, November 19th, 2024. If you're watching live, apologies for the late start: technical gremlins, which we have now gotten rid of. Professor Gilbert Doctorow will be with us in just a moment on what is the Kremlin's reaction to US escalation in the war in Ukraine.

1:00
But first this.
...

2:30
Hi, Professor Doctorow, welcome here and thank you very much for joining us. Over the weekend, the United States government, of course, announced that it was authorizing Ukraine to fire United States missiles as deep as 190 miles into Russia. Did the Kremlin expect this?

Doctorow:
Well, they've been talking about this going back almost two months. They did not expect that Biden's refusal to allow Starmer, the British, to use a similar-distance missile, the Storm Shadow, against Russia when Starmer visited the White House on September 13th. At that point, the Russians said clearly that this was probably just a delay, and they expected at a later point, the question to arise again. Well, it has arisen.

3:29
And there are two types of responses that I'd like to give. I mean, the Russian responses. One is coming from the press secretary of President Putin, Peskov, who said, nothing has changed since mid-September's statement by President Putin that the launch of such missiles against Russia coming-- missiles produced by nuclear powers and used by a non-nuclear power, in this case, the Ukraine, would be considered the entry of that producer into a co-belligerent status. There was a moment-- there's a little bit of comfort in that, in the rest of Putin's statement, which was that Russia would react in a manner commensurate with the damage that it suffered from such an attack. In other words, Putin is not saying you attack us, you can expect ICBMs coming your way. No, it's a bit more moderate.

4:37
And the second response came yesterday evening on this very authoritative talk show, analysis show, called "The Great Game", in which the line, the following line was given, which I repeat because it should give a lot of the viewers more comfort about the stability, the good sense of the Russian side. And that is that such attacks will be considered, or just the whole permission given by Biden is considered, to be Biden's legacy. It is his attempt to lock in his place in history, and it should not be viewed as having any substantial, potentially having substantial threat to Russia's winning position in the war.

5:27
So he's trying to lock in, Biden is trying to lock in his policy of giving every possible support to Ukraine for the sake, let's say, of the next electoral cycle in the States, which is just two years from now. At that point, the Democrats can say, well, Biden gave all support to the Ukrainians, look at what he did at the end of his presidency, and look what happened immediately after Mr. Trump threw Ukraine under the bus, with all the consequences for American prestige. That is the way the Russians view it.

Napolitano: 6:02
Do you think that the European elites and American State Department elites recognize that Ukraine is lost? Or do these people, some of them, think there still is some last opportunity to push the Russians out of Ukraine?

Doctorow:
I don't believe there's anybody in Europe among the elites who sincerely believes that there's any chance of stopping the Russians. They will align like so many ducks in the line, because that's the way they carry out this European Union of 27 states without any sovereignty, all bowing down before the golden idol who is Ursula von der Leyen. That is the situation here. But to think that behind this facade, no one understands the game is up, that Ukraine is lost, would be a mistake. I think that how the British and the French have reacted to Biden's decision on ATACMS tells you the real truth.

7:17
That is to say, both of these countries, even as recently as Armistice Day, on November 11th, were saying, yes, we have to strike the Russian bases far behind the front lines, so that we can level up the playing field and give the Ukrainians a stronger position in any eventual negotiations. Well, what did we see yesterday, or a day after Biden made his announcement that the ATACMS will be used? Did these two gentlemen come forward and say, "Oh yes, we're going to give permission and xxxxxxxx for Ukrainians to use Storm Shadow"? Nothing of the sort. There is-- behind this facade of unanimity in an absolutely stupid policy, there is the realization that there is some real world out there that you have to cope with.

8:09
The real world is the inauguration of Donald Trump less than 60 days from now, versus playing up to Biden, who's going to be out on the street. Why would you follow the United States in permitting the use of your long-range missiles and threaten response from Russians, which is a remote possibility. The immediate possibility is the gentleman who takes office on January 20th will never forgive you for this sabotage that you do now. In two months, the guy is gone, and they have to deal with Trump for four years.

Napolitano: 8:49
Here's the gentleman who's going to take office on January 20th, about as direct as I have ever seen him on this very topic. It's about two minutes long. It's worth capturing every word of it. This is Trump at his best or worst, depending on which side you're on. I applaud what he says. Cut number eight.

President-elect Trump: 9:15
We have never been closer to World War III than we are today under Joe Biden. A global conflict between nuclear-armed powers would mean death and destruction on a scale unmatched in human history. It would be nuclear Armageddon. Nothing is more important than avoiding that nightmare. We will avoid it, but we need new leadership.

Every day, this proxy battle in Ukraine continues. We risk global war. We must be absolutely clear that our objective is to immediately have a total secession of hostilities. All shooting has to stop. This is the central issue.

10:02
We need peace without delay. In addition, there must also be a complete commitment to dismantling the entire globalist neocon establishment that is perpetually dragging us into endless wars, pretending to fight for freedom and democracy abroad, while they turn us into a third-world country and a third-world dictatorship right here at home. The State Department, the Defense bureaucracy, the intelligence services, and all of the rest need to be completely overhauled and reconstituted to fire the deep-staters and put America first. We have to put America first. Finally, we have to finish the process we began under my administration of fundamentally revaluating NATO's purpose and NATO's mission.

10:58
Our foreign policy establishment keeps trying to pull the world into conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia, based on the lie that Russia represents our greatest threat. But the greatest threat to Western civilization today is not Russia. It's probably, more than anything else, ourselves and some of the horrible, USA-hating people that represent us. These globalists want to squander all of America's strength, blood, and treasure, chasing monsters and phantoms overseas, while keeping us distracted from the havoc they're creating right here at home.

11:42
These forces are doing more damage to America than Russia and China could ever have dreamed. Evicting this sick and corrupt establishment is the monumental task for the next president.

Napolitano: 11:55
My goodness, what a difference from the current occupant of the Oval Office. What do you think?

Doctorow:
I agree with you. It's the most brilliant speech by Trump I've ever heard. Succinct to all the points. I only have one little point, one little item to call out. He can be forgiven for saying that the most important issue with respect to Russia and Ukraine is an immediate end to hostilities.

12:26
From the Russian perspective, that's unacceptable. No, there have to be a number of things all going at once. The Russians will not halt their move westward to Dnieper and beyond until they are satisfied the United States will deal with them on equal basis on addressing their security issues, which is where the war started in December 2021, over a new security architecture. So in that sense, it's simplistic to say that having a ceasefire is of utmost importance. For the Russians, it isn't of utmost importance.

Napolitano: 13:07
A very interesting observation. I'm going to play in a minute or so the clip to which you referred, from President Putin back in September. But before we do, here's a full screen, I'll read it out loud, of Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesperson. This is yesterday when he says this decision-- he's of course referring to the decision to allow the Ukrainians to use American weaponry to strike deep into Russia-- "This decision is reckless, dangerous, aimed at a qualitative change, a qualitative increase in the level of involvement of the United States in this conflict." Before you reply, professor, add to this the certain knowledge on the part of the Kremlin and Russian intel and the Russian military that this equipment can only be operated by Americans, because of the downloading of top secret information from American satellites. So it is Americans aiming the equipment, it is American equipment, it is American ammunition, and even though there's no actual trigger, it is Americans pulling the trigger. Surely the Kremlin knows all this. How will they respond toward these Americans who are doing it?

Doctorow: 14:28
With great pleasure. I think-- let's take a step back. What Mr. Peskov was saying is dead wrong. I think basically the Kremlin is quite happy that the United States is identified publicly as the ones who are attacking Russia. Why do I say that? The United States, despite everything that many viewers may have in their minds listening to us, is not totally irresponsible. The Ukrainians are.

If these missiles could be handed over to Kiev to do as they like, then I think we would be very close to World War III. Why do I say that? Because these missiles cannot reach the air bases from which Russia is attacking Ukrainian positions, which is the nice, cuddly story that Zelensky has fed to our journalists, who repeat it endlessly, though it's an outrageous lie. They all know that the Russians bombers are stationed well beyond the strike range of the American and the British missiles.

15:31
What is not outside strike range is the nuclear plant in Kursk. And if the Ukrainians could just do anything they like with these missiles, they would certainly strike that. And that would head us off to World War III, because striking that nuclear plant means vast nuclear radiation over a large stretch of Russian Federation. And if that-- if you want to find a way for Russians to send their ICBMs the next minute against Washington and New York and Los Angeles, that would be the way to do it.

16:08
Now, since the Ukrainians have no such possibility, because they're not controlling the missiles, the Americans are. You saw an attack as occurred at three o'clock in the morning local time today. That is the attack on Bryansk. This was by exactly these ATACMS missiles. But let's face it, who gave the targeting? Who found this cache of arms that was struck? The Americans.

And the Americans essentially did everything but pull the trigger. Therefore, Mr. Peskov is heading in the wrong direction. I understand him, but it's not the situation. I think the Russians and the Kremlin are quite satisfied that the Americans are directing this, because the Americans will not do something absolutely crazy, whereas the Ukrainians will.

Napolitano: 17:01
What did the Ukrainians gain by attacking this storehouse or warehouse of weaponry? And were any Russians injured or killed in the attack?

Doctorow:
Well, there's no report. The Russian reports on this are very sketchy. The main thing that they highlighted is that six ATACMS were used to strike this cache of arms or missiles or whatever else was there, of which five were shot down by the Russians. And there you have it, the sixth got through.

This is the point that's bothered me as soon as I heard about Biden giving permission, that the earlier strikes, and this is not the start of ATACMS being used from Ukraine. They used it against the Kerch bridge. They used it for strikes in Crimea without success. But they were like ones and twos. And the Russians could cope with that.

17:58
What I was concerned about is under the new conditions, would there not be swarming, that is large numbers of objects, some of them drones and some of them ATACMS, that would in fact get past the Russian air defenses? And that's what we saw happened this morning. And so the really interesting question is just how many ATACMS did the United States give to Ukraine, and do they have the capability of such swarming attacks as we go forward?

Napolitano: 18:30
Here is the statement from President Putin to which you refer. This is September 12th, so it's a little over two months ago. He's very, very calm and methodical. After you watch this, I'm going to ask you if he is as calm and methodical today. Cut number one.

Putin: (voice-over translation) 18:48
It is not about allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not. It is about making a decision about whether NATO countries are directly involved in the military conflict or not.

If the decision is made, it will mean nothing less than the direct participation of NATO countries, the United States and European countries in the war in Ukraine. This is their direct participation and this, of course, significantly changes the very essence, the very nature of the conflict. This will mean that NATO countries, the United States, and European countries are fighting Russia. And if this is so, bearing in mind the change in the very essence of this conflict, we will make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be created for us.

Napolitano: 19:34
No mention of nuclear weapons, of course. You mentioned earlier in this program that President Putin is committed to the principle of proportionality, which of course is in international law, as you know. That is, not using greater force, to the extent these things are measurable, against his adversaries than was used on him. Won't the Russians do something to retaliate for the destruction of this arms cache at three o'clock in the morning?

Doctorow: 20:08
Well, I'm sure they will. There are many things that they can do. Some of them will appear to be directly connected to this event, and some of them will not. For example, the Germans, Mr. Pistorius, complaining that somehow a vital communications cable between Scandinavia and Germany was severed yesterday. The implication is that it was done by the Russians. Well, maybe it was.

I'd like to call attention to something else in respect to response. There is a kind of response already. There's another piece of news that the Russians are showing, and not just the Russians, that other international broadcasters are carrying. That story is that the Russians, that is Putin today, officially signed the decree for the new Russian strategic doctrine on use of nuclear weapons. And that doctrine is precisely what we heard in the September 12th interview: that Russia can respond with nuclear force against a non-nuclear power, which is a principle that is also an international law: it should not be done. But if they feel that the non-nuclear power is in alliance with a nuclear power to attack Russian territory, which is precisely what happened in Bryansk early this morning, then Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against both countries that are attacking it.

21:54
So the message from September 13th was reinforced by an official decree of the president today. And I imagine that I'm not the only one who is reading that document. I think some of the people down the road in McLean are also reading it very carefully.

Napolitano: 22:14
Right. Are you of the view, Professor Doctorow, that those on this program and elsewhere who have been warning, including the president-elect, that we are close to World War III as a result of what Joe Biden authorized over the weekend are not accurate?

Doctorow:
Nobody knows for sure. But I would have a little bit of comfort from the several things I've deduced today, that senior people, senior analysts close to the Kremlin are saying that they view this, not his view, but what he's done, from the standpoint of his ensuring his legacy and preparing it for the next electoral cycle and not as intended to do existential damage to Russia, thereby precipitating a nuclear exchange. That has to give us some comfort. Things can go awry, and we are very close to a collision. I agree with that overriding principle.

23:21
I've been saying this for some time, but nonetheless, let's not get carried away here. There are signs that this threat is manageable and that even this Biden administration, with the likes of Sullivan and Blinken, will have some sense of self-preservation and will not go over certain red lines that take us into total insanity. As I said, the strike today was a malicious act, a provocation, but it was within what was initially set out when the permission was given. It was against a military target. It was not striking residential units, which is typical of all of the attacks that the Ukrainians make [with] weapons that are not limited in use by the Western producers.

24:19
It was not directed against the nuclear power plant in Kursk, which the Ukrainians have struck and tried to strike with drones. It was under the control of the United States government. Therefore, if you believe that the US government is intent on self-destruction, then I would worry. I think there are a few people who are concerned about their families, about themselves, and will not do something utterly crazy.

Napolitano: 24:51
Here's the Russian ambassador to the United Nations yesterday. very unhappy with President Biden, President Macron and British Prime Minister Stormer, cut number 12.

Russian UN ambassador Nebenzya: (voice over)
Perhaps Joe Biden, for many reasons, has nothing left to lose, but we are astounded by the short-sightedness of the leadership of the UK and France. They are eager to play into the hands of the exiting administration and are dragging not just their countries, but all of Europe into large-scale escalation with drastic consequences.

Napolitano: 24:27
"Eager to play into the hands of the exiting administration", Biden, and "are dragging not just their countries, but all of Europe into large-scale escalation with drastic consequences." When the Russian ambassador to the UN says that, Professor Doctorow, is he speaking for Vladimir Putin?

Doctorow:
He's playing to the chorus. I don't take that with any seriousness. He's a very clever man, and I respect his intelligence. But he's also carrying out the propaganda mission of the country he works for.

26:03
And what he's saying has been proven by, so far, proven by events that was talked by Starmer and Macron, and they have no intention of destroying relations with the incoming administration, which has already announced its plan to stage a trade war against Europe. The last thing those people want is for an embittered Trump to really do harm to the European economy in his tariff policy. So I don't believe for a minute that they are going to fire any Storm Shadows or SCALPs against Russia in the 60-day window of opportunity before Trump takes over. I don't at all. So the ambassador is wrong.

Napolitano: 26:47
I'm not asking you to put your finger on the pulse of the American electorate, because that's not your field. I don't usually go there myself. But what do you think the reaction will be if Americans come home in body bags? We know there are American troops, contractors, defense contractors, CIA and other intelligence personnel on the ground in Ukraine. We know that President Putin has said they're fair game. Isn't there a good chance that some of them will not come home alive?

Doctorow: 27:25
Well, I'd say at least half of the country doesn't give a damn, the half that voted for Trump. He is against the three-letter agencies. Everybody knows that. Therefore, if they come back in body bags, tant pis, just too bad.

Napolitano: 27:43
Here's President Zelensky on Sunday arguing, you tell me what you think he means by this, the missiles will speak for themselves. This is right after Biden gave the authorization, or Blinken, whoever gave it. Cut number seven.

Zelensky: (voice over)
Today, there's a lot of talk in the media about us receiving permission for respective actions. But strikes are not carried out with words. Such things are not announced. Missiles will speak for themselves. They certainly will.

Napolitano: 28:17
Is he crazy enough to try and reach targets that would be more painful if struck than what they struck at three o'clock in the morning?

Doctorow:
As I said, he's not the one who's calling the shots. I understand he's on a high, for once he's not on a drug high. This was exactly what he wanted, he's been calling for. He's been going around to every possible world event to call for this. Well, he got it. But he is not the one who's setting up the targeting. And that is our salvation. Because the ones who are setting up the targeting are sitting in Washington and they would like to survive the next 60 days.

Napolitano: 29:00
Professor Doctorow, it's a pleasure, my dear friend. Sorry for the late start. Your thoughts are striking and fascinating, as always. Thank you for allowing me to pick your brain. I hope you'll come and join us again next week.

Doctorow:
Well, very kind of you. Till then.

Napolitano:
All the best. Coming up later today at 1:30 this afternoon, Professor Jeffrey Sachs. At two o'clock, Matt Ho. Matt is 600 meters from the border of Israel and Gaza, and he has some striking observations about what he has seen in Gaza from his perch. And at three o'clock this afternoon, Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski.

We're ever so close to our half-million subscription goal by Christmas; it's almost Thanksgiving. Like and subscribe, help us spread the message, help us get there.

29:54
Thank you for watching. We'll see you later with Professor Sachs at 1:30 today. Judge Napolitano for "Judging Freedom".