Judging Freedom - Dr. Gilbert Doctorow: The Kremlin’s View of US Elections.

Episode Date: November 7, 2024

Dr. Gilbert Doctorow: The Kremlin’s View of US Elections.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, November 7th, 2024. Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us now. Professor Doctorow, a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you. I want to explore your knowledge, understanding, and belief about the Kremlin and the American presidential elections. of the status as of today of the war in Ukraine, the incursion into the Kursk Oblast and the main movement of the Russian military towards the Dnieper River? The movement of the Russian army in Donetsk and Donbass proper is continuing without halt. However, that you will hear from everybody else. I would like to add one little nuance here,

because this you will not hear from other people, from most people. That is that there is resistance from the Ukrainian army. There are counterattacks. There was at one point in the long line of confrontation some 20 separate attacks by different units of the Ukrainian armed forces. I'm speaking now about Donetsk, not about Kursk. Kursk is a different story. There the situation is also worthy of note. On the Kursk front, the Russians today were showing on television the dead and captured mercenaries. They are saying that there are

these 15,000 mercenaries that are fighting in the Ukrainian army, and a good number of them were sent into the Kursk front. And those include Americans. They are large numbers of Frenchmen, particularly Poles. So they are being routed out, they are being trapped and killed, or they are being allowed to surrender if they are prepared to do that. But that is what's going on in Kursk in small numbers. I think the Russians reported that 150 enemy were killed in the Kursk region today. The much larger fighting, of course, is on the Donetsk front.

And there, as I say, you cannot have an accurate understanding by saying that the Russians are steamrolling the Ukrainians and that the Ukrainians are falling back in disarray. That is not the case. How much longer? This is fascinating, Professor Doctorow, because you're the only one who's saying this of the 17 or 18 guests with whom this show interacts every week, each of whom has their own sources of information. But I love it when you're the iconoclast. And candidly, you are almost always the closest to the area that we're talking about. How much longer can the Ukraine military expect to last from a perspective of manpower? V. Of course it's being depleted. And the Russians make no secret about the fact

that they are taking out of action, either by death or by serious injury and hospitalization, more Ukrainians per day and per week and per month, then Ukraine is able to recruit. So generally speaking, the forces available to Kiev to continue this fight are diminishing despite the very heavy attempts at mobilization. I'd like to come back to explain that I'm taking my observations about the the fight back of the Ukrainian forces, that there's still some resilience and willingness to sacrifice at the front line, that's not my personal opinion. And neither am I getting it from an oral way, from contacts here. I'm getting it from Russian state television and from the reporters on the ground, the

war correspondents. They have no reason whatsoever to exaggerate the condition of the Ukrainian forces. So I believe what they're reporting. All right. How many Ukrainians are being killed or disabled from action a day? We were told it's about 1,200 a day. They can't possibly be recruiting that number. Oh, they are.

They are. At least they say they are. If you look at their recruitment methods, it's understandable. They're dragooning people in the streets. They're going to nightclubs and dragging men off the dance floor. So in that sense, yes, they're capturing bodies, and you could do that. The problem is they have no time or ability to train those poor souls whom they ensnare this way, and so they're really being sent to their death.

They're given arms, but they have no particular skills. And this war is a terrible war. They have to be on the lookout all the time for drones, for attack drones, kamikaze drones. And they have no skills in this way. Has the West, as far as you can put your finger on the pulse of the West, I know you're in the East at the moment, but has the West recognized that the war in Ukraine has become futile from the Western perspective? It's not talked about. The overriding mission is what it was from the very beginning, if you take the expert opinion of the Swiss military, Colonel Jack Bode, it was from the beginning to do damage to Russia and not to defend Ukrainian interests.

So from the get-go, nothing has changed, nor is there a particular interest in what losses Ukraine takes, because they are an instrument of bludgeon against Russia and nothing more. classic American neocon who nevertheless appears to be campaigning for Secretary of State in the Trump administration. Now, he talks very, very quickly, Professor Doctorow, but that's nothing new for you. You're multilingual. I'd love your thoughts on what he has to say about the futility, something he never said before Trump's election, the futility of the war in Ukraine. Chris, cut number nine. Who wants war? What he's talking about is he wants the war to end. Now, as a businessman, he's not going to tell you about his negotiating tactic to bring it to a close. But I don't understand why we would not want a war like that to end. They don't admit it publicly. But if you ask the Biden administration, they will tell you we are

funding a stalemate. OK, I think the Ukrainians have been incredibly brave and strong and standing up to Russia. But at the end of the day, what we are funding here is a stalemate war. It needs to be brought to a conclusion because that country is going to be set back 100 years. Now, that doesn't mean that we celebrate what Vladimir Putin did or are excited about it. But I think there has to also be some common sense here. And that is that right now what we are funding is a stalemate that's costing lives. And, you know, putting Ukraine, it's going to take 100 years to rebuild that poor country with everything they are facing. Is Rubio's attitude credible from your perspective?

It is. As a matter of fact, this evening's news in Russia has been focused precisely on the same things that American news is focusing on. Who are the candidates to the position of the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and so forth,

giving us a little bit of information from the Russian perspective of who these people are. And yet the overriding issue is, does it make any difference? From the Russian perspective, not really. They have gone over today what they perceive to be Mr. Trump's possible peace plan, which is to tell the Russians, if you stop your advances today, enter into negotiations, and we will stop supplying arms to Ukraine. And if you don't do that, then we are going to provide much more weaponry to Ukraine,

and then you're really going to have a hard time. From the Russian perspective, this is total nonsense, simply because the United States cannot get that equipment to the front lines in Ukraine since the Russians have severed the logistics. So anyone who is saying that we will supply the front lines of Ukraine is talking nonsense. The Russians understand very well that they have the upper hand and they will not accept the conciliatory remarks of Mr. Trump and of the people around him based on the notion of a continued American dominance, that Mr. Trump's belief in his own strong will and negotiating abilities

can change the world to suit his and America's interests without paying attention to Russia's interests. From that standpoint, Mr. Trump's accession to power in January will change absolutely nothing from the Russian perspective. Did the Russians strike that? Did the Kremlin favor Vice President Harris over former President Trump? It definitely did. And that was not a joke.

It was meant in all seriousness because they understood that Kamala Harris was an empty vessel and that she would be simply manipulated by the advisors who had been curating, as they call it, Trump, curating Biden in his senility. But here they would have an easier time because Biden had some experience, some residual memory.

Kamala had nothing to remember because she had nothing by way of international experience. So from the Russian standpoint, she was the perfect new president, a weak leader who would continue America's decline. That was good from the position of an enemy of the United States. And the reason why Mr. Putin has not congratulated Donald Trump, one of the very few world leaders who has not done that, the reason is also clear,

because Russia considers its relations with the United States to be virtually at war. Did the Kremlin, well, let me rephrase it, were there efforts either by Russian intel or Russian NGOs or people loosely affiliated with either to influence the American electorate to vote for Kamala Harris over Donald Trump? No, but there were things which were picked up by American journalism and were blown out of all proportion because the context was wrong. What I have in mind is the whole story about Russian trolls creating pseudo reports on vote rigging, vote stuffing, and other egregious abuses in the American voting system to discredit the American democracy. Such films were made. I saw one on Russian television. And what did this film show?

Oh, it showed, it had testimony of someone who claimed, oh, that they had six or seven absentee ballot letters stuffed into their mailbox. So in the hope that this person, anybody say what was a democratic district would actually use them and abuse them. This type of material. Let me just explain. Such, I believe, such films were made here in Russia. They were not for the American audience. They were for the Russian audience to try to persuade Russians or to explain to Russians

why American democracy is a falsehood. That is true. Paul Jay Does the Kremlin care about the American electorate? Peter Robinson I suppose they do. They, I mean, they say, of course they say. They speak about their adversaries as being the elites, not the people. The American people are fine and good folks, except for those who are caught up in LGBT, in transgender,

and these other crazy excesses that you find in California. But otherwise, the American people are just fine folks. It's the elites who are the trouble. The Washington Post professor, Dr. Rowe, this morning reports that Muscovites are rejoicing in the election of Donald Trump because they perceive him as an isolationist who may very well terminate American aid to Ukraine. Well, they're partly right and partly wrong. I don't know whom they were speaking to. I don't think the people I see around me here,

and I was just out and about today, they're not terribly interested in isolationism in America, where the U.S. is headed. They are, of course, interested in a cutoff in financial and military aid to Ukraine, and there is a perception that Donald Trump will do that. However, the general public is not aware of what I was just explaining a few minutes ago, where the real political analysts, the real competent journalists who are on the major state news programs are saying, explaining why Donald Trump's notion of how to negotiate or how to bang heads together and get a settlement and find peace, like Rubio was advocating, are based on really the same kind of American exceptionalism and global domination as the outgoing presidency. And well, everyone can judge for himself whether that is a valid observation, but that is what is being said.

Well, tell me what the Kremlin thinks. Will the Kremlin dispatch Foreign Minister Lavrov to speak directly, could be in person or on the telephone, however they talk, with Tony Blinken's successor, whoever it is, whether it's Marco Rubio or Mike Pompeo or fill in the blank, in order to do something that Blinken never did, which is speak directly with his Russian counterpart. I shouldn't say never. Hasn't in the past year and a half spoken directly to his Russian counterpart? No, I'm sure the Russians will be open to negotiation, especially with directly the United States. The sore point here is what kind of negotiations can there be with Zelenskyy when, by all logic,

he's no longer the president. He is an imposter. He is continuing in office beyond the constitutional rights. So the Russians are not prepared to negotiate with him. And frankly, what they want is regime change in Kiev. But if the American Secretary of State wants talks, the Russians will be only too happy to enter into those talks. So one of the conditions of a Russian cessation in violence would be regime change in Kyiv. Now, that could happen like that if the Americans wanted it, of course. So either Trump would have to be in favor of it or Trump's secretary of state would have to be talked into it by Foreign Minister Lavrov.

Am I understanding you? SECRETARY BLINKEN This question has been, has appeared in other interview programs in the last day, and everyone has an opinion on it and is expressing it. Some of them are Russia specialists and some of them aren't. And what they are saying is that the United States, well, they are either speaking without justice about Russian demands that far exceed what Mr. Putin wants, or they're speaking without justice on a Russian position that is far more flexible and unable to defend Russian interests than what Mr. Putin is saying now. On the one hand, they're saying that the Russians will not enter into a peace

unless NATO agrees to roll back to its 1991 borders. That's nonsense. That is not part of the Kremlin's position. On the other hand, they're saying that the Russians will agree to something like a Minsk II where it's kind of a frozen border truce. The Russians will not agree to that either. So on both extremes, people who are also on air this last day have been giving misinformation to those who are trying to make sense of what's going on. The Russian position is harder and softer than what I hear my peers saying.

Right, right. Wouldn't you suspect that the Kremlin, whether openly or secretly, is happy at Donald Trump's election if for no other reason than that he hates NATO, keeps wanting to dial back American contributions to it, and the European elites are not happy over this? I think that the Russian opinion is divided about Trump. I don't think the basic skepticism about doing business with him has changed because he is he is who he is volatile and somewhat makes a virtue of unpredictability. The Russians liked predictability. They liked constancy. They don't like loose cannon on the deck.

And that was their position in 2016, although they didn't say that. They appeared to be happy with Trump. It is certainly their position today. So the main point is they are not waiting for their fortune to come by on January 20th when Trump is inaugurated. They have their own position. They're confident militarily. They have the upper hand in Ukraine and also the upper hand against NATO. In one of his last interviews before the actual election, Donald Trump claimed that he had spoken to Vladimir Putin seven times since he, Trump, left office.

A, do you think that's true? And B, if so, what do you think they talked about? Well, Putin more or less denied that. Well, he didn't say yes, he didn't say no. He left it to the imagination of those of the questioner that they didn't take place. Considering Mr. Trump's readings on truthfulness, one can be skeptical. All right. So you're skeptical about this. You would have no idea what they talked about.

Where do you see Ukraine going? How do you see it ending? Well I shouldn't put ending in your mouth. How do you see it progressing in the next six or eight months? The Americans, the Trump administration, may put in a tough negotiator at the Secretary of Defense position and so forth. But that doesn't change the understanding of the Pentagon as a whole. That the Russians have the upper hand. So any threats being made now are taken with a grain of salt. Threats by the American side, either hinting at their peace plan or what may happen on January 20th. They're not taken seriously because the Russians are confident that they will have their way. Now, what does that mean? Certainly they're going to the, unless something intervenes like an American decision even

before Biden leaves office to stop financing, which is not going to happen, the Russians will make it to the temper. Whether they do that before January is uncertain, but it could well happen. You indicated a little while ago when I was asking about direct communications between whoever becomes Secretary of State of the United States and Foreign Minister Lavrov that the Russians consider the U.S. to be at war with Russia and there would be no direct communications, even if there's a valid basis to consider that the U.S. is at war with Russia, wouldn't that all the more be the reason for the chief diplomats to speak? Question number one. Question number two. Does the Kremlin believe that U.S. troops are on the ground, U.S. troops in uniform are on the ground in Ukraine? Well, the second, they believe that American troops are in Ukraine, and particularly

in Kursk. Not by themselves. Kursk? That would mean American troops are inside Russia. Yes, why not? French are there, Poles are there, Brits are there, so why shouldn't Americans be there? You're not talking about soldiers of fortune, veterans looking to make a quick buck. You're talking about active duty American troops who are part of the Defense Department command are physically located inside Russia and armed. You're going a bit farther than I was saying.

Okay. The Russians are not saying what you just said. They're simply saying that there are Americans, British, and they have shown the passports on television. Okay, I get that. I'm asking you about American troops. No, no. Nothing of the sortports on television. Okay, I get that. I'm asking about American troops. No, no. Nothing of the sort is being claimed. And when I say

that relations are de facto of countries at war, I did not mean that the Russians are unwilling to negotiate. On the contrary. The question is, with whom will they meet? With the Americans. They will not meet with the Ukrainians because there is no legitimate government from a Russian

perspective in Kyiv. But with the Americans, of course they will meet. Just they do not want to accept the position of dominance that Trump is projecting, as if he, by his will alone, can solve this problem. They were laughing today on Russian television about the famous settlement within 24 hours of being elected. Well, you read my mind. I was just going to ask you about that. That is laughable, but he repeated it many times. Well, they just reminded us that he made such a statement.

And it's laughable because it indicates exactly the wrong mindset that America calls the shots and that the Russians will say yes, sir, when the Americans tell them what to do. That is not the present situation in the Kremlin. Professor Doctorow, thank you very much. Great, great, terrific, challenging analysis and deeply appreciated. Can you come back next week from wherever you might be?

No, I'll be in the same place. I'll be in Petersburg until the 18th of November. Beautiful city. I'm going to guess it's snow-covered by now. We had snow. It's melted, but it probably will come back shortly. All right. Well, stay well, and thank you very much for your time, Professor.

All the best. We'll see you next week. Thanks for having me. Of course. Coming up this afternoon, Aaron Maté at 2.30 and Colonel Larry Wilkerson at five o'clock. Please remember to like and subscribe. We broke 475,000. We broke the number of 475,000 subscriptions just the other day. If you like and subscribe, you'll help us reach our goal, which is a half a million by Christmas. That's only a month and a half from now.

Help us spread the word. Justin Palatano for Judging Freedom. Thanks for watching!