Judging Freedom - Dr. Gilbert Doctorow: Is Russia Prepared for War with US?

Episode Date: September 19, 2024

Dr. Gilbert Doctorow: Is Russia Prepared for War with US?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, September 19th, 2024. Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us from Brussels. Professor Doctorow, a pleasure, my dear friend. I have to thank you publicly, as I've done privately, for these weekly audiences, my audience, and I deeply appreciate them, and given your background and expertise in all things Russian, honestly, it's a privilege to be able to pick your brain. Professor, last week at about this time, mid to the end of the week, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and his British counterpart, David Lamy, were in Kiev with former president, but still acting president, Zelensky. And they were hinting, without saying specifically, but it was very obvious, that they both expected the United States and Great Britain to authorize the use of long-range missiles to reach deep into Russia. As they began to fly to the United States, President Putin made a very, very serious statement using one of Joe Biden's favorite words, don't, because if you do, we will consider the United States to be at war with Russia. By the time Lincoln Lemme and Prime Minister Starmer arrived in

Washington, Prime Minister Starmer was a bit embarrassed, and President Biden was obviously furious when he was, I guess, compelled to come to the conclusion this wasn't going to happen. What is your take on all of this? I think there's been a lot of confusion in the public space over what this meant. First of all, no one has talked very much about under what situation, in what place did Mr. Putin make this statement. Was it before the Duma, as it would be as he's preparing to request a declaration of war on the United States? Was it before in his formal speech to the Russian public or what? I can play for you, President Putin.

It almost appears, you'll know the background better than I, that he's in a hallway speaking to a reporter. But here's the guts of what he said. And this is September 12. Cut number five. 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. Can you tell where he was when he said that? Well, I know exactly where he was because I've been there many times myself.

It's just outside the General Staff Building of the Tsarist Russia, which was converted maybe 20 years ago into a branch of the Hermitage Museum. So they have their collection of French Impressionists on the third floor of that building. It is also where the Cultural Forum, an annual event in Petersburg that has national and international dimensions, was being held. And he was either coming from or going to the general meeting of that Cultural Forum where he was going to speak or spoke. We didn't cover everything he said, but it is clear that that is the core of his message. Joe, Keir, do this, and I'll regard your two countries as being at war with me, and you'll accept the consequences. Scott George says, and Doug McGregor says, he wouldn't rule out attacking London or the U.S. mainland if he believed that Great Britain, for what that's worth, and the U.S. were attacking him. Formally speaking, I agree.

Though interpretation-wise, I don't agree. What Mr. McGregor is saying, Colonel McGregor is saying, others are saying, is highly exaggerated and sensationalist in my view. This was, I say, the context. This was an offhand statement, of course, but it was made to whom? To Pandul Zarub the, who tails Putin around all of his travels and puts on a Sunday program for old ladies drinking their tea called Moscow, the Kremlin, Putin. This was not the Russian public. It directly or formally, he was making a statement which will have domestic repercussions and will reassure his citizens that he is not a

patsy. But how much of a threat this was to the United States is a matter of interpretation for several reasons. The first one, as I say, the context, where they say it happened. The second is how realistic, how really worried is Russia about the permission that may or may not be given to the British to launch the storm shadow against themselves? Colonel McGregor doesn't say a word about this. Well, let's do that right now. I don't think that the storm shadow in this present situation is much of a threat to Russia. The storm shadow can only be launched from a jet the russia the ukrainians had difficulty using it initially because they have to

especially retrofit their soviet vintage jets to accept this from the storm share right just for those just for those of us not uh familiar with the technical terms, is Storm Shadow American or British? It's British and French. There's a French version called Scalp. There's a British version called Storm Shadow. There are two different radiuses of this. The longest one is 500 kilometers, which I don't think was first turned over to the Ukrainians. I think they got a 300 kilometer radius version.

Now let's say it's 500 kilometers. 500 kilometers will not reach Moscow. That's number one. It will not reach St. Petersburg, number two. So the nature of the threat to decapitate Russia by giving them these missiles isn't there. You can do a lot of damage. But then what happened two days ago? Vast damage, as we understand, occurred when the Ukrainians used drones to attack a weapons storage. I understand it was Iskander missiles in northern Russia. Now, that was not a storm shadow, and it did a pretty good job. So let's go cautiously about this, And let's not rush over the facts for the sake of getting a wider audience. Okay.

I understand what you're saying. But what is your take on President Biden? agree that Prime Minister Starmer was on his way to London expecting to discuss targets in Russia with President Biden. He had a map with him. And then Joe Biden walked into this room, we'll play it for you, with Prime Minister Starmer and their staffs and a group of reporters. And, well, I'll let you watch it for yourself. Chris, Joe Biden angry with Prime Minister Starmer. All right, till I speak, okay? That's what I say. Good idea?

What do you say to Vladimir Putin's threat of Warsaw? Well, you got to be quiet. I'm going to make a statement here, okay? All right. Anyway, Mr. Prime Minister, welcome. Welcome back to the White House. Often said there's no issue of global consequence for the United States and Great Britain can't work together and haven't worked together. And we're going to discuss some of these things right now. So the American press and even the alternative media like the show you're on now have been interpreting this to mean he had just been persuaded, the Defense Department, to heed President Putin's warning. We are not ready to enter into a war with Russia.

And Joe Biden was angry at that. And it happened minutes before he walked into this room and you saw what he said. Do you accept all that? Yes and no. There's a lot of play acting in all of this. For the Russians, for their part, do not believe for a minute that the decision has been taken not to allow Ukraine to use these weapons. They believe it's an abeyance and that's all. The Russians are acting on the assumption that this permission will be given. Whether it's today,

tomorrow, next week, is a matter of irrelevance. So unless, so that is, that has to be taken as a given. Mr. Dmitry Kiselyov, who is as close to the Kremlin power as you can get in the Russian state television, said on Sunday night that they believe that the permission has been given, in fact, to use these, and it's just being held back for a while, while it's being gift-wrapped by the people around Biden. So, but let's step back and see how decisive is that issue. I say it's not decisive. What would be decisive in a game-changer is if the United States agreed

not to release the Atacoms for use inside Russia, because that is similar to the Storm Shadow in Radius. And both Storm Shadow and the Atakams have been captured either whole or in piece parts by the Russians because they were used already in the war. And the Russians have devised either electronic warfare means or interception means to stop a lot of these missiles. So that is already old story. What is new story is the possible use of JASP, this stealth technology, 1500 kilometer range US missile. Now, when it comes to that, which the Russians have no experience stopping, and which has a range that can reach Moscow,

then you have to say that's where Mr. Putin's remarks become relevant and actionable. Right now, it's a lot of addressing his own public to make, to remind them, to assure them that Mr. Putin and his colleagues are not pushovers and that they will defend the country as required. But it is not a direct threat tomorrow to have a preemptive strike on the United States. It is nothing of the sort. And I do not believe with my colleagues that we were lucky to survive the past weekend.

Is Russia, by which I mean the Kremlin, the intelligence community, the military, and the Russian public, preparing or prepared for war against the United States, Professor? Without a question, yes. And if you had any doubts, the announcement two days ago that they are raising the number of men-at-arms to, I think it's 1.5 million, about a 200,000 increase. That was a further illustration of the determination of Moscow to be ready for a war with the United States

and its allies. Of course, this is again, this is symbolic. Whether it's another 100,000 or 200,000 is pretty meaningless when you have a country just on the border, Finland, saying that they, a moment's notice can raise, I think, 180,000 men at arms and women at arms in Finland. The point is, if it comes to that, they'll be using nuclear weapons, both sides, and that there is not going to be a battle of the bulge going on in 2024 or 2025. If there is a war between Russia and the United States, will Russia bring it to the U.S. mainland?

Absolutely. That is beyond dispute. This was the essence of Mr. Putin's remarks and of the follow-up remarks made by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Vybkov. This was the warning. Don't think, Washington, that you're going to be left untouched while we in Europe destroy one another. We will go to your neck first. That was the message. Is Putin under pressure, President Putin under pressure, either from the media, political forces, colleagues in the Kremlin, colleagues in the military, to be more aggressive in Ukraine and end the war quickly? Pressure, sir, is sure, surely is there. But this is not the sort of thing that would be in public view, nor is it something that I have greater access to than anyone else. It is simply logic that tells you he's under pressure. But to demonstrate it, who exactly said what, that would be putting him under pressure, is not possible.

This is done behind closed doors. But you can see, without question, is that the incursion in Kursk was a great embarrassment and humiliation for Putin and his top command in the military. It was a big disappointment for Mr. Putin. That would necessarily put him back-footed and in the need to appear to be defending his country and to make amends for these lapses that made it possible for the frontier to be breached in such a dramatic way as it was. What is the status of the incursion into Kursk now? Well, the latest information is that there are continuing skirmishes that the smaller units, and they only are small units of Ukrainians because they cannot gather in large numbers, lest they be destroyed in a single blow by the hammer blow of the Russian glide bombs. If they are being isolated, if they don't have sufficient reinforcements,

the main attention of Russia remains on the border, where they are seeking to destroy any men and equipment that is prepared to reinforce the remaining troops within. But this is an area that is largely forested, where there are hideouts. Now, Russian television shows how they have detected through drones groups of the Ukrainian soldiers, stragglers, and they have by means of drone, attack drones, kamikaze drones, they have killed 10 soldiers here, 20 soldiers there. That's the kind of fighting that's going on. The Russians, Mr. the, there's a major general of the Chechens,

who was interviewed on Russian television, traveling around in a vehicle, inspecting his Chechen fighters, speaking with them, and he was saying that we're in no rush. We have no rush because you rush and you lose a lot of men and so uh to safeguard the lives of russian troops we don't have a deadline to liquidate the ukrainian forces in course but they all will be flushed out and killed to surrender before uh i ask you about the role of intel uh all of this. What is your opinion, Professor Doctorow, about how much longer Ukraine can hold out? I mean, for example, here's what Americans want to know. Can they make it to election day? Are they limping to election day? Or is this going

to be even longer? My guess is it will be longer. Not because the Russians cannot finish it quickly. They can in a variety of ways, not to mention a vast bombing of Kiev and so forth. They have within their power to end the war tomorrow if they wanted to. at enormous cost of life on the Ukrainian side, or the day after tomorrow, with enormous cost of life on their side, because they're waging an assault that is always deadly for those who are carrying it out. There are no rush. The question of the U.S. elections is of much higher interest in Washington, the United States, than it is in Moscow. The perspective of the Russians, it's tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum, and they don't expect any big change.

You anticipated my next question. Now, just for some laughs, here is Boris Johnson over the weekend at some gathering. He's seated next to the former U.S. Secretary of State and CIA Director Mike Pompeo. He refers to him as Mike. That's the Mike to whom he's referring. But I'm sure you'll be at odds with the statement he makes, the manner in which he speaks is his own unique choice. Chris, cut number seven. As for the role the Ukrainians could themselves play in stability and security in the Euro-Atlantic area, it's obvious. Thanks to the heroism of the Ukrainian armed forces, they've been fighting for more than two years,

almost three years. They are the most accomplished armed forces in the whole continent. And it's easy to see how they could play a very, very important role in peace and stability on the whole continent. And it's easy to see how they could play a very, very important role in peace and stability on the European continent. One of the arguments I think we should make to our American friends is if they want to take back some US troops from the European theatre and save a few billion, a lot of billion, Mike,

then I'm sure the Ukrainians, having defeated the Russians, and there's nobody more effective at defeating the Russians than the Ukrainians, I'm sure the Ukrainians would be only too happy to backfill in Europe. Anyway, those are some of the things, some of the ways in which I think Ukraine can be a force for stability. It's not very realistic, is it? In fact, it's almost absurd. Well, he was flattering his hosts. How much of that he really believes is another question. I'd like to say, though, there are some elements of what he said that deserve closer attention and a more positive evaluation than I have seen anywhere in alternative media.

When he says that the Ukrainians have been heroic, he's right. Let's not kid ourselves. I don't agree with those of us who are saying that the Russians are steamrolling everything. They're not steamrolling it. This is a tough battle. It can only be a tough battle if there were Ukrainians who were fighting and fighting for out of patriotism and out of sincere belief in their country. That should not be laughed at. Now that they are dying like flies, that Mr. Zelensky is destroying his nation, that's a separate question.

But the Ukrainians had, at the start of this war and well into the war, probably the most effective military other than Russia. Who else had an army that size and that determination on the European continent? Nobody. They've lost 600,000 troops in two and a half years. It's almost a generation of young men, 600,000 dead. A lot of them were killed for lack of proper preparation and because there was no air cover and a lot of the disastrous advice that was given by NATO. But that is not a commentary on the valor or the sincerity of those who went to war. We see enough on Russian television about the people, civilians, dragooned from the streets and sent off to the front.

That is another side to the story. But let's not assume that that is the whole story. It's only part of the story. What is the role of intel in this, both Russian and Ukrainian? I'm perplexed by remarks of some colleagues, peers, who are saying that this is an intel run war or an intel war, not even run, that isn't qualified in any way against Russia. Now, I will concede that the brains of the operation may be the CIA, but I don't hear my colleagues conceding that the brawn of the operation is the Pentagon. It's the Pentagon that runs Ramampstone, not Mr. Burns. I don't see his presence at these things. So

where the role of the CIA begins and ends is something that should be discussed among us and not taken for granted as it seems to be. Do you think that the your statement now feeds into the narrative that the Pentagon, not the CIA, and certainly not the State Department, talked Joe Biden into holding off on the decision, back to where we started our conversation, Professor, to authorize the use of long-term missiles. I definitely think the Pentagon has more intelligence than people give it credit for. I'm not a great admirer of Mr. Austin, but I took note a week ago of his statement

when asked about giving or not giving permission for these long-range missiles, his statement was very well advised. Whether he came to that conclusion himself or with the help of his advisors, the result is the same. The position that he was declaring, that these wonder weapons would not change the balance of the war, and that the Ukrainians had the means to strike within the heartland of Russia without using such missiles, and that the Russians had moved their aircraft and weapons caches beyond the possible range of the storm's shadow. That was a perfectly lucid, intelligent, and admirable statement that you would never expect to come from the Pentagon by all those

who are saying that the CIA runs the show. Paul Jay How deep into Russia can Ukraine strike today? Pretty far. They already are striking at Tver, which is maybe 60 miles away from Moscow. And they're doing it with drones. Now, why is that? Drones are very difficult to detect and bring down. Of course, a drone, generally speaking, cannot do anything remotely like the damage of a cruise missile with a large warhead. Nonetheless, if it can ignite

a store of Iskander missiles, that's pretty good. And you don't need a storm shadow to do it. When I asked you a few minutes ago if the Kremlin, Russian intel, Russian military, and the Russian people were prepared for war with the United States, you said yes immediately. Is the Pentagon, as far as you can tell from your perch in Brussels Brussels prepared for war with Russia? I think Mr. Austin's answer is the answer to your question. No. That's why they took such a serious look at the balance of strike power, United States and Russia today. Not in 2026, not in 2030, not when they're given all the time in the world to prepare themselves, but today, they're not ready. from the comments that folks are writing in and from my own intellectual curiosity,

which you never fail to sate, but also provoke, which is great. Thank you, Professor. All the best. I hope you'll come back again next week. Thank you. Thanks to you. Of course.

And we do have a busy day ahead for you. At two o'clock this afternoon, Max Blumenthal. At three o'clock, Professor John Mearsheimer. At four o'clock, our Intelligence Community Roundtable with Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern. And at five o'clock, from Moscow at midnight, Pepe Escobar. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.