Judging Freedom - Dr. Gilbert Doctorow: Putin, Xi, and BRICS

Episode Date: October 24, 2024

Dr. Gilbert Doctorow: Putin, Xi, and BRICSSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This new year, why not let Audible expand your life by listening? Audible CA contains over 890,000 total titles within its current library, including audiobooks, podcasts, and exclusive Audible Originals that'll inspire and motivate you. Tap into your well-being with advice and insight from leading professionals and experts on better health, relationships, career, finance, investing, and more. Maybe you want to kick a bad habit or start a good one. If you're looking to encourage positive change in your life one day and challenge at a time, look no further than Tabitha Brown's I Did a New Thing, 30 Days to Living Free. In the audiobook, Tab shares her own stories and those of others alongside

gentle guidance and encouragement to create these incredible changes for yourself and see what good can come from them. Trust me, listening on Audible can help you reach the goals you set for yourself. Start listening today when you sign up for a free 30-day trial at audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. so hi everyone judge andrew napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, October 24th, 2024. Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us now from Brussels. Professor Doctorow, it's a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for joining us. Before I ask you about the latest from the Kremlin and your view on the North Korean troops and whether they're there or not there. I want to ask you a few questions about the Middle East from a Kremlin lens. How, if at all, does the Kremlin view what I and guests on this show perceive as genocide in Gaza perpetrated by the Netanyahu government?

Well, I don't think we look so much for direct statements from Mr. Putin. He's rather circumspect or from his press secretary, Peskov. But the panel shows that are close to the Kremlin, that is either the Great Game or Vladimir Soloviov, they speak very openly. And you may take their remarks as representing those of the inner circle in the Kremlin. And that is, of course, condemning the savagery that's being perpetrated by Israel in the region, the deaths both in Gaza and in Lebanon. These are highlighted. They are called out the same way as you or I or other people of conscience are calling it out in

the West. So that is unequivocal. Exactly what Russia is doing about it is something less easy to fathom. There are many imponderables here. We know, for example, in that leaked document about Israeli war plans, they were planning to fly in over Syria and to launch missiles on Iran from inside the Iraqi border. The question to which you would ask is, why doesn't Syria have adequate air defense? This is an imponderable, certainly within the power of Russia to deliver it, just as it wasn't clear why after the Russians more or less helped Damascus to subdue the insurgents that had received US support

during 2015 to 2017. Why didn't they follow that up with sufficient defenses for Syria? Why did they allow Israeli jets to attack what were called Hezbollah arms caches or whatever, or Hamas arms caches in Syria. This doesn't add up. There's a very complex geometry here, which I don't think any of us fully fathoms. How many Russian troops are in Syria? I don't think the numbers are very big. Remember, they have two bases in Syria.

They have an air base, and there have been Israeli strikes not far from the air base, which caused a lot of discussion in the chattering classes in Moscow. And they have an army base. But I don't think a great many men are involved. The equipment is there, particularly the, I'm sorry, they have a naval base, and that's which is used for provisioning or repair work to naval vessels and submarines.

They haven't used this in a way that you would expect to defend Assyria. They've used it only to defend themselves and their interest in Eastern Mediterranean. This is a bit perplexing. At the same time, my colleagues, as you know very well, because you interview some of them, they speak about Russian assistance,

military assistance, military equipment being shipped in to help the Yemenis, to help Hezbollah, and to help Iran. But these are all unofficial statements. How accurate they are, how precise any estimates of a quantity or quality may be, we cannot say. So the Kremlin is intentionally quite very quiet about its current activities to prop up its allies and protégés in West Asia. Is it not true that the Russians have provided substantial, extensive, expensive Russian manned anti-missile gear, for lack of a better word, to the Iranians? Well, you're speaking about the S-400s. Yes. It is possible. It is likely. But it is not officially recognized. Interesting.

Surely the Russians, surely the Kremlin, sees a potential connection between the bellicosity of Prime Minister Netanyahu and Russia's newfound ally, Iran, and how this bellicosity may end up involving Russia. Well, I subscribe very much to interpretation on these relations between Russia and Iran that has been put forward, I believe, on your program, but more generally by Ray McGovern, that there is a big restraint. I think we lost you, Professor. All right, we're going to do our best to bring Professor Doctor back. Chris, are we staying on the same link? Yes, we are. Okay. So I plan to speak to Professor Dr. Abak as soon as he gets back here, of course, about the rumors of North Korean troops in Russia, rumors that seem to be perpetuated by

President Zelensky himself. It's a fascinating subject matter. We discussed it briefly with Tony Schaefer when he was on earlier this morning. I also plan to talk to Professor Doctorow about BRICS. Here he is. You're back with us. Hello, what's going on? Okay, well, anyway, you were talking, I believe,

about the nature and extent of Russian, if at all, Russian support for defensive mechanisms in Iran anticipating an assault from Israel. Yes, but I was about to say that I subscribe to what Ray McGovern has otherwise been saying, that Russia is holding back Iran and is not giving it a blank check, which signing that mutual defense conditions within their comprehensive cooperation treaty would be providing to Iran. And that is being done in the expectation that the United States is similarly restraining Israel. And if we may take as proof of that restraint, the leak of these secret Israeli documents on the war plans, how they intended to attack Iran. So it is quite possible that some kind of unofficial

coordination is going on between what the United States is doing with Israel and Russia is doing with Iran. Nonetheless, Iran, I'd just like to stress that Iran is a member of the inner core of BRICS. And what that means is more or less being spelled out for the general public in these days as a two-tier system of BRICS membership, DASH association as partners is being put into place. And we expect this before the end of the BRICS summit, an announcement will be made on which countries are going to be in which category. The largest number of applicant members for BRICS will be in the second lesser category of partners rather than full members. Before we get to BRICS, I just have one or two more questions about the Middle East. Does the Kremlin comment or has it commented on the security, on the telegram leak of documents?

Because one of those documents is the first time we have seen in an official American document, albeit a top secret one that the Americans never expected would be revealed, the casual reference to and utter recognition of Israel's nuclear weapons program. There has been very little comment in Russian news, in Russian talk shows representing the chattering classes. The leak as such has gotten much less attention in Russia than it has in Western media. It seems as though if the documents are accurate and all the people on this show academics like you ex-military ex-intel have indicated that the documents are accurate and real that they were

not a subterfuge intended by whoever leaked it and whoever prepared them to give the Iranians a false report. It's obvious Israel will change its plans now, but it seems obvious that Israel is planning a significant attack on Iran. Does the Kremlin still expect to restrain Iran in the light of a significant Israeli attack? One, for example, that would attempt to destroy iran's uh nuclear capability whether for domestic uh purposes or for weapon weapons one that might impair iran's oil which would be insane economically but who knows what Netanyahu will do. One that might impair Iran's oil refinery, one that might kill Iran's senior leadership, which is the custom and habit of the IDF. Right. This all assumes that Israel would be committed to do it. And I think that what we just discussed a moment ago

suggests that there is a restraining force being exercised by Washington, by the Pentagon, or whoever authorized and carried out the leaks that we're talking about. And this also is not an idle question. For Russia, it's extremely important, of course. Will Israel be permitted or enabled to carry out these devastating attacks? And Russia surely has contingency plans for that.

But it takes us back, I don't want to be a one note orchestra here, but it takes us back to this question of the head and the tail of the dog. And I would say that to everyone's surprise, it looks like the head of the dog is sitting in Washington and that head decided against letting the tail wag it. But there's more to that issue. And I'd just like to take one second to one moment to explain why I made this an important issue from the beginning. Because. Because if Israel is a proxy, and proxies are expendable, if we are speaking of an American foreign policy that corresponds to the remarks of Kissinger, that to be an enemy of the United States is dangerous

and to be a friend of the United States is fatal, the situation where Israel would be controlling Washington would be a perfect scenario for fatality for Israel. And it would be sacrificed, thrown under the bus for the furtherance of American interests. If indeed it is Washington that is calling the shots and not Israel, then I think Israel's future is safer. Interesting. Are there North Korean troops in Russia? Most likely, yes.

The numbers vary according to which newspaper or media outlet you're looking at in the West. Between 3,000, I think that was the number in a lead article in Financial Times today, also rumored 12,000. But I'd like to look at this in a broader context. It's one of these knives that cuts two ways, or swords that cuts two ways. It's everyone's looking at it from the standpoint of, well, this shows if the Russians really need help, or the Russians really don't need that much help,

because how much can you expect from 3,000 infantry even if they're highly skilled. I think that more likely it's what you hear in a slip of the tongue on Russian television that the exercise is to train the North Koreans, not to save Russia in Kursk. North Korea hasn't been an open battle for some time. Russia is in the middle of it. If Russia is providing modern equipment to the North Koreans, as is being alleged by those who are banging the drum, but as South Korea, Japan, how horrible it is that Russia

is supplying advanced weapons, I think it's logical that the North Koreans would be in Russia, in the war zone, to actually try out these in war conditions and learn how they work and learn how to become effective. So I think the exercise would be more likely directed towards training North Koreans than in saving the Russians from the devastating effects of the Ukrainian invasion of Kursk. And there's the other side of it, still more important. The message to the United States, to Japan, and to South Korea, that if they want to heat up the confrontation in the Korean peninsula,

they will have Russians, they will find themselves against Russians in North Korea. Very interesting. Is it the view of the Kremlin, as far as that would be to misjudge what the war is about. I was very surprised. The Western media is changing. The editorial board of the Financial Times are the most vicious promoters of neocon ideas. And yet in today's issue, they feature an article by Ivan Khrushchev which itself is very interesting because Khrushchev, to my knowledge, was one of these young journalists who were put on the payroll

of George Soros. Soros hired a whole group of journalists. He set up the equivalent to the United States Council on Fire Relations in Europe. And he brought to it journalists who were in his pay. Ivan Khrushchev was one of those people. And he has an article in today's Financial Times, a featured article, in which he's explaining that the West is looking in the mirror. The West is not listening or interested in what Russia is really saying, that Putin today is as different from Putin in December 2021 as Stalin was in 1944 compared to Stalin in

1940, that there have been very significant changes. And most importantly, in answer, direct answer to your question, we're speaking about Russia viewing the war as a war against the collective West and against NATO, not a war against Ukraine. Therefore, to say when will the war be over? It'll be over when there are security arrangements revised in the spirit that Russia demanded in December 2021. Do you think that the neocons in America recognize that Ukraine, no matter what kind of support we give, it just can't hold out much longer? They don't have the manpower. I don't know that they're aware of it, because Russia has been playing this very slowly.

Even the mop-up operation now in Kursk is not being rushed. They're not being pushed. They are doing it systematically at least cost to themselves in manpower. So it is easy for those who don't want to see the writing on the wall not to see it because of the way the Russians are playing their game. Nonetheless, there are surely people in Washington and many of them, no doubt in the Pentagon, who understand perfectly well how wars are prosecuted and how wars are lost, and who

understand that Ukraine is on its last legs. But as I say, the war will be over only when there's a some kind of a settlement with with the United States and NATO and not just a settlement with whoever happens to be put in charge in in Kiev when it comes to negotiate, because surely it will not be Zelensky who leads the negotiations. If he tries to, he'll be strung up from the nearest lamppost. Paul Jay How significant economically and geopolitically is the BRICS meeting in Kazan going on as we speak, Professor? Professor Robert R. Reilly The BRICS meeting is enormously important for in the financial world. And after all, the G7 is, yes,

it's the governing board of the world, but primarily for economic matters, financial matters, for control of the international institutions like the World Trade Organization, the IMF, the World Bank, these policies governing these institutions are made by the G7. Now, BRICS is an alternative to that world order, and it is evolving in a very significant

way, as announced by President Putin in his address to the expanded BRICS, that is to all heads of government who came to Kazan. They had a special banquet last night, and Putin made some remarks that are really worth paying attention to. He said he set out the initiatives that have already been introduced and begun to be implemented under the Russian presidency of BRICS. And these include such things as establishing a grain bourse or exchange, similar to the Chicago Exchange for Grain, setting up a gold exchange and silver exchange, similar to what you have in the United States or in London. That is to say, commodities exchanges,

which have been totally dominated by the West and allowing speculation serving Western interests, will be facing direct competition from BRICS institutions doing the same service, but not open to speculation or to political pressures on other countries. That's a big area of change. As to currency, everybody expected that the decision on a BRICS currency, well, there isn't going to be one. But what they are going to do is continue their work, and probably this will be implemented rather quickly because there are prototypes, both in Russia and in China, for a SWIFT equivalent messaging service for all banks participating in it,

whereby the US-controlled, Belgian-based SWIFT will be not used. Similarly, they are going to to put in place a method of handling disbalances in the commercial exchanges that they do state-to-state using national currencies. These are world-changing institutional changes. They are not a military alliance, but they are of key importance for global governance. Will BRICS soon have two I's in it? Will it be B-R-I-I-C-S, the second I being Iran? Well, however we spell the acronym, the reality is that it is now nine full members. And as I mentioned in passing, there is a two-tier organization with an inner and outer. The inner side is already made.

I think they will be announcing some new memberships being offered to key Southeast Asian countries. As we know, the big expansion last year was in Northeast Africa and West Asia. So they have a big gap to fill in the other most dynamic part of the world economy, which is Southeast Asia. And Malaysia is certain to be admitted to BRICS in short order. So there will be a bigger number than nine, but it will not, 30 members are not going to become full BRICS members.

Just a handful of them will, and the rest will be partners. And that is to avoid a period of confusion, to water down what cohesion they have now. And as Putin described it, we are a group of nations with similar values with similar world views it took some time to forge that consensus and they don't want to postpone progress in bricks by having to tame other new new inductees into the bricks does have its eyes on a NATO member, which has its eyes on Bricks, and that is, of course, Turkey. Might any other NATO members, Hungary comes to mind, be interested in Bricks, and might Bricks be interested in them, and is it even conceivable that a country could be in both NATO and BRICS at the same time? It depends which BRICS you mean. If the inner circle, I think, is doubtful. For the partner countries, why not? I think it's to Russia's interest, and the interests of its partners in BRICS, to overlook the Turkish membership in NATO in order to weaken the American global position

and its NATO position, since Turkey is the second largest army within NATO, and to prepare the way for Turkey to be thrown out of NATO, which is more likely than Turkey quitting NATO. This is likely. Mr. Erdogan is not greatly trusted in Moscow. They know he's playing a double game. They don't particularly mind that so long as he's giving them a lot of things that they need and want. But looking at the BRICS overall and where it's headed, I think BRICS will be extremely important as changing the balance of voting within all international institutions, starting with the General Assembly of the United Nations, extending to the Olympics committees, extending to old directions of multinational organizations, BRICS will form a solid block to prevent the continued domination by threat, by blackmail, and by blandishments that America exercises in these institutions today.

Does BRICS, or do the powers behind BRICS, I guess that's President Putin and President Xi primarily, seek to replace, and we're losing you again, there he is, do the power brokers in BRICS, as I'll describe them, President Xi and President Putin, ultimately want to replace the U.S. dollar as the standard currency? I think replacing is not in the cards in the near future, but to sharply reduce the use of the dollar, not just for commercial exchange, but as a reserve currency, and to deprive the United States of its ability to impose its will on the emerging countries of the world, the developing countries of

the world, and the minor players in the world, as it presently has. Replace, no, because they will not introduce their own currency, but they will reduce the volume of trade denominated in dollars, the commercial information which America enjoys because so much of what world commerce passes through its banks and is susceptible to interception by U.S. intelligence. These advantages of the dollar are going to be shaken very quickly. But to say that the reserve currency will disappear, all those countries will all dump their U.S. treasury notes, I think is unrealistic. We're going to play a clip from President Putin. This is at the earliest part of BRICS, so it's four days old.

But my question will be to you after you listen to this. Who is his audience? Cut 14. We never refused the dollar as a universal currency. We were blocked from using it. Now 95% of all external trade of Russia, it is carried out with our partners in national currencies. They did all this with their own hands. They thought everything would collapse, but no, nothing collapsed. It's developing on a new basis. Rarely see him smile, but he's happy to be saying that. Who was that

intended for? Janet Yellen? I think clearly, yes. This is for Washington. It is a direct pushback. Look, when you have the secretary or the press secretary of the White House saying what she did that Mr. Putin is delighted to push back and to say, my goodness, you really misunderstand. We are vastly more important than you are. And nonetheless, I have to say that Mr. Putin has also exaggerated the outset, just before the meetings began, that BRICS countries have risen from 1992 to 2023 in such a way. Yes, BRICS countries taken one by one have. But BRICS as a club was not responsible for this. The single biggest factor in BRICS countries rising in their share of global GDP from 17% in 1993 to 37% in

2023 was the rise of China, which was unrelated to the creation of BRICS in 2009. So to be sure, the impact of BRICS on the globe, on the dollar and so on, is only beginning. But as the BRICS has had to receive global news attention as soon as she and Modi touched down in Kazan, despite all of the wishes or ill wishes coming from Washington, Berlin, and London. So BRICS is going its own road to global significance and to becoming a rival to the G7 in how financial affairs, which finally are very decisive in world affairs, are handled. Professor Doctorow, a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for allowing me to take you from the Middle East to Ukraine to Kazan. But we very much appreciate all of your thoughts and analysis.

And I personally appreciate you letting me pick your very fertile brain. Much appreciated. I hope you'll come back and visit with us next week, wherever you might be. It's very kind of you. Thank you. Thank you, Professor. All the best.

Coming up later today, if some of you are wondering why you see judging freedom and copyright on the screen from time to time, it's because we recently discovered that some folks are stealing our content, changing the background, and offering it as their own. This is, of course, a violation of a copyright law, and it's a violation of the agreement with YouTube. They're doing it anyway, and YouTube is cooperating with us in stopping this. But it's easier to stop it if we embed into our product a reminder that what we do is copyrighted.

Coming up later today, Colonel Larry Wilkerson at noon, Colonel Doug McGregor at one, Professor John Mearsheimer at three. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.