Judging Freedom - Gilbert Doctorow : Ukraine War Hits Russians’ Pocketbooks

Episode Date: May 6, 2026

Gilbert Doctorow : Ukraine War Hits Russians’ PocketbooksSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Undeclared wars are commonplace. Pragically, our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression with no complaints from the American people. Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government. To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected. What if sometimes to love your country you had to alter or abolish the government? Jefferson was right? What if that government is best, which governs least? What if it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong? What if it is better to perish fighting for

freedom than to live as a slave? What if freedom's greatest hour of danger is now? Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for judging freedom. Today is Wednesday, May 6th, 2000, Dr.o. Well, Professor Dr. O was with us for a minute,

but we seem to have lost him. So he's coming to us from Hungary and has a lot of information to talk to us about the status of politics in Russia at the moment. And I know that that's

very much on his mind, and that's, of course, what I want to ask him about as well. So Gilbert, Dr. Are you out there? All right. He was just,

he was just here. I think I'm going to stay here and talk to you until Professor Dr. O arrives. My column coming out this week, which you can catch on the Judge Knapp series that we're producing, is called the Comey indictment and the freedom of speech. And in that column, I argue that the government can't prosecute Jim Komi for taking a picture of seashells on a beach. because he has the right to do that under the First Amendment. Interesting case I came across in doing my research. A young man in 1966, it was drafted and condemned the draft,

said as soon as I get a rifle in my hands, the first sights will be set on Lyndon Baines Johnson. It was the president at the time. Of course, he was indicted and convicted of threatening the president. The Supreme Court threw it out and said it was just speech. He didn't have the ability to harm the president, and he said it in front of an audience, and there was no reaction. Looks like we're not succeeding in here we go. All right.

All right. You're back with us, Gilbert. Welcome back. Can you hear us? We can't hear you. Well, I'll tell you right now that there is a problem. I hear you. Okay.

All right. We got you. We got you. So welcome here. The audience was listening to me, talk about free speech in America while you were dealing with Internet issues to our conversation today. Is Russia winning its war against Ukraine? There is an Internet issue here. Once again, there's double time.

There's an echo, two minutes, about 30 seconds after I make a statement, is coming back to me. All right. I think we're both going to, we're both going to log off. Chris, can we do this? We're both going to log off and log back on. How does that sound, Gilbert, Dr. O? There's one of you and one of me. So we're glad to hear it. Back to where we attempted to start a few minutes ago and with appreciation for your patients and with the audience patients. Everybody's familiar with this. Internet problems that afflict all of us. I'm in New York City, Professor. or Dr. Roe was in Hungary. Is Russia winning its war against Ukraine? Two or three weeks ago, I would have said unequivocally yes. In fact, not just would have said, but I did say. And now, in the present circumstances, I have to say, nobody knows. The notion that this was a stalemate and that Russia was not winning

was the conventional message coming from mainstream media. As you know, most of alternative media was saying absolutely opposite, that Russia was on the cusp of a massive destruction of Ukraine and was winning the war in a matter of days to come. The latest news leaves me in very great doubt that anything like the latter narrative is any more true. And what has changed things is the clear entry of massive new, highly sophisticated. missiles and drones on the Ukrainian side, probably coming from Great Britain. Yesterday, there were 650 drone strikes against Russia. In one area, in central Russia, dozens of homes were destroyed. A week ago, in Sevastopol, the capital of Crimea, 200 homes were destroyed by Ukrainian strike.

We all know about the destruction of the war. destruction of port facilities for Russian oil export and of refineries in Russia. There was an attack to with three days ago on a major oil refinery situated between Moscow and St. Petersburg, Kyrdyshi. I know that place very well. It is an important provider of petrol, of gasoline to distributors across northwestern Russia. These attacks are of a different nature, a different level of destruction than anything we've seen before. And to pretend that Russia reaching the Dnieper will be the end of the war, or Russia taking Odessa,

will be the end of the war, is totally today irresponsible. The war will not end until the junta in Kiev is utterly destroyed. Does President Putin understand that or stated differently? Has he finally reached the point where he's at the end of his own patience and recognizes the need to bring the war to a quick military end? We can come close to your second point, judging by what President Putin said a day ago, in light of remarks made in Yerevan, that is in Armenia,

by the Zelensky, speaking to the Europeans, all of whom were gathered for a conference there. And Zelensky said that he did not accept Putin's notion of a two-day truce for victory in Europe Day, the 8th and the 9th of May, and that his four armed forces intended to attack Red Square. The remarks of President Putin later in the day, as they were transmitted to us, is breaking news on Russian state television news coming from the Department or the Ministry of Defense. His remarks were that if there is

is any such attempted attack on Red Square, then Russia will use massive missile and drone attack on the center of Kiev and that he warned the diplomatic community and the population of Kiev to leave the city. Now that is as close as President Putin has come to satisfying the widespread and growing discontent and anger with the way the war is conducted, among people in Russia. I don't talk about us abroad. I'm talking about the, the, let's call it, the establishment, which sets the limits to what the president can do. Russia is not a dictatorship. Mr. Putin is subject

to pressures from all sides, all sides. Those four more action, those like those for making a piece on the terms that are less favorable, All sides apply pressure to him. But the greatest pressure now is coming from the patriots who say, enough is enough. Let's end this war before it gets worse. Did the Kremlin underestimate Ukraine its military capabilities, much as the United States has underestimated Iran? I think the parallel there is appropriate.

President Trump listened to Massad instead of listening to the CIA. He heard what his own CIA people were telling him was an exaggerated and undependable appraisal of Iran's military might. The President Putin in February 22 entered upon the special military operation against clearly against the best information of his closest associate, starting with Shai-Goo. Those of us who watched the announcement of the Special Military Operation, which had in the front row cabinet ministers, including Shai-Gu, understood from their facial expressions that none of them was happy with that launch of a war. Now, for various reasons, they all have their own,

perspectives, but one point which some of them must have known is that Russia's military forces were totally inadequate to the intentions of the special military operation. And the President Putin had not asked the advice of his military intelligence people the same way that Donald Trump did not listen to the advice of the CIA. So there are parallels there in wars, which two weeks ago we would have said we're going in opposite directions, but as of the latest news of these drone strikes, I'm afraid, are going in the same direction. What is the Russian military going to do about this? Arrashniks at government buildings in Kiev? I suppose he's being pressured to do that. At the same time, there is a certain lack of vigor.

in the announcement that looks like a serious threat, if President Putin would take into account the way the world is running now, where Mike makes right, and there are no international laws that any major power is listening to, let alone heeding, he would do the obvious when he received a direct threat to make a massive, to make a damaging attack on the, the events in Red Square. That is threatening the life of the Russian president, threatening the lives of his invited guests like Robert Fizzo from Slovakia,

and threatening the military personnel on that parade. The logical action in that context would have been to give 24-hour notice at once because we're going to destroy you. He didn't do that. He's waiting for them to make an attack. And what? Kill hundreds or thousands of soldiers on Red Square, kill him and the invited guests, that will be the good basis for a strike on Kiev? I'm sorry, I don't buy it. Has the execution of the war and its attendant consequences caused Russia to lose influence in Eastern Europe, in the Middle East and in Africa? Well, a lot of countries are losing influence, and a lot of countries are losing credibility these days. So Russia would not be alone in that circle. But of course, it does not

do credit to Russia to be seen as weak. And the present situation is precisely that. Russia looks weak when it has no reason to be. In terms of its ability to defend itself, it has the wherewithal. But what it seems to like is the will to use that wherewithal. Gay Lavrov, the smartest person in the room, and I say that sincerely, not sarcastically, where is he on all this? Is he saying, Vladimir, let's get this over with before it consumes us? And then I'm going to ask you about the economic consequences of this. But before we get to the effect of this on the pocketbooks of average Russians, do you have views or do you have knowledge of the interaction between Putin and Levrov?

No, I don't have a special reading on that. But I will say that judging, going back three, four months, it seemed to me that Lavrov is caught between Iraq and a hard place. He has wavered this way and wavered that way. He was first antagonistic to the message coming from his own deputy, Sergei Abkoff, that diplomats that was finished and this battle, this war would be resolved on the battlefield. And then a month later, he came around to the same position,

which is an anti-Putin position, to be frank about it. Now, he cannot hold that for long and keep his post because two of them have to work in synchronization. So he's in a difficult position. I think he's listening to the critics, his own deputy, is a critic of the very mild way this war is being conducted. but he has to also maintain dialogue and some semblance of agreement with his boss, President Putin. Let me segue just a little bit off of Russia and Ukraine and stick with Lavrov.

What does Lavrov think, as far as you can determine, Gilbert, of the Laurel and Hardy team sent to negotiate on behalf of the United States? states, Krishna and Woodcoff. He cannot have forgotten more than these two together have ever known. He cannot have very kind words for them because they set the precedent for his boss

President Putin appointing Demetriov the equivalent of those two clowns to be his emissary to the negotiations. Demetriou was a terrible choice. He is

in his own way, a buffoon. Yes, he's a very highly educated, but the others aren't stupid. The question is not stupidity. The question is political orientation. And he is an American asset. He is not a Russian asset. So in that sense, I think Lavrov must be very, very unhappy. The appointment of Dmitriv took the negotiations out of the hands of his own ministry and put it in the hands of Ushakov, who is no longer in his ministry,

but has for I think close to a decade been a special advisor of foreign affairs to President Putin and to Dimitriv, who is working together hand in hand with Ushakoff. These are in a liberal camp. I've said before, Russia has its different camps, liberals who we call westernizers and more traditional conservative patriots. The Lavrov, I think, is closer to the traditional patriots. The Dimitriyev-Ushakoff side is the liberal westernizers. For his own business reasons, Demetriyov has good reasons for making peace with the United States at any price.

This is consistent with the allegations against Kushner and Woodcoff being war profiteers to compound their ignorance of Russia, their ignorance of Ukraine, their ignorance of Iran. Let me go back to President Putin. Why did he meet with the Iranian Foreign Minister Arachi? Well, in the West, most of the mainstream, and I think a good part of my peers in alternative, are seeing this as a message given by Putin that he backs. the Iranian cause in every which way. I take it the contrary view.

I think that it was at the initiative of a Rachi, not of Putin that this took place. After all, it wasn't in the Moscow. It took place where Putin happened to be at the moment, which was in St. Petersburg. And it was served the purposes of the Iranians to have a highest-level meeting with the Russians to give a message that it cannot be properly deciphered

effort in Washington. Maybe the Russians and the Iranians are really cooking up something together, and maybe they're not. No one knew or could know in Washington. So you had to assume the worst. That's precisely what Arakshi must have wanted. The closing statements about this, as we know that President Putin has said in his talk to his telephone conversation with Donald Trump, which followed several days later in the same week, that Russia, gives its full support to Iran, but then after the three dots, you find out what kind of support, diplomatic support. That isn't going to change the balance of power between Iran and the United States. It's not going to save Iran.

This was not a military alliance that was being held out. We don't know what the Russians are giving to the Iranians besides intelligence. But this was not a threat. by Putin to Donald Trump that Russia would intervene in Iran's favor. It was not. The White House claims Trump called Putin. The Kremlin says Putin called Trump. I think the Kremlin's version is probably more credible here.

But what do you think President Putin's purpose was in calling President Trump? Surely, if he's going to make a veiled threat, but it's just diplomatic, Trump's people would advise him that it's just diplomatic. You have nothing to worry about. Well, there are a number of things that could have had in mind. One of them is a deal that I could describe in exactly the opposite

terms from the way the New York Times or the Financial Times are describing it. That Putin would be proposing will help you get off this message that you've made with Iran. If you'll help us solve the problem with Kiev by stopping your supply of military intelligence and so forth. The way it's usually presented is that Trump was telling Putin that he would stop

supplying aid to Kiev if Putin would persuade the Iranians to capitulate. That would take a thunderbolt from heaven to persuade them of that. Why did Putin call Netanyahu? This I don't know. Their relations are, shall we say, stable? They are not hostile. The Russians make a big deal about their ability to speak to all sides in the Middle East and therefore that they are potential brokers of a peace.

but they could have been a hidden warning against taking a strike on Iran. I don't know. Has the special military operation, just like Trump's war in Iran, affecting American pocketbooks, has the special military operation after four years finally affecting Russian pocketbooks? It is, but the reasons in each case

quite different. I'll only focus on the Russian case. It is self-inflicted damage. What is going on is a very clumsy conversion of Russia's broadly based economy to from a war economy at the expense of the consumer economy part. And this has been carried out by a policy of extremely high interest rates from the central bank of Russia, administered by its its director, Elvira Mabulina, which has a 21% prime rate when the inflation was 8 to 10%. So this was sold to the public as a means of fighting inflation when my argument is it has precisely the opposite effect.

It is feeding inflation because the effect of this high interest rates on the consumer economy was to drive a lot of consumer producers out of business, that working capital at 20% per annum is not feasible. The large military industries, many of whom are owned by oligarchs, were receiving heavily subsidized loans, thanks to the Ministry of Finance.

But the small and medium-sized companies that are typical producers of hot dogs and all kinds of clothing and other consumer goods, they were not receiving any subsidies. They're driven out of business. So at the very moment, when more money is coming to the hands of the Russian public through these high subsidies for signing up for the war, through the regrettable to say the payment of the blood money for those soldiers who die in action,

and through the very heavy use of otherwise lost industry across Russia, which are given small jobs to serve the military industry, there has been more money in circulation. At the same time when goods to buy in circulation have stagnated or fallen for the very reason the production has been taken out from bankruptcies. So if you look at it from a big level, the Russian economy is suffering.

We know it's not my speculation. President Putin himself acknowledged that in the first two months of this year, Russia was in a negative GDP. They lost one and a half percent. Whereas in years two and three of the war, they had plus four percent, and the president was crowing about how his country had survived the sanctions from hell of Victoria. Newland and was doing splendidly.

It's not doing splendidly to now. And the political consequences of this bad economy may very well be felt in the parliamentary elections in September. Can Putin govern with the strength and personal determination with which he's been governing if his party doesn't have a majority in the legislature? It depends on who is the beneficiary of the loss of majority position of his ruling party, the United Russia Party. If indeed the communists who were, or were from the 1990s, the second largest party in Russia, with close to 20%, 18, 20% ballot,

for them. If they succeed in taking votes away from United Russia, which is possible, then he will have a more difficult time managing parliament and may have to do a lot of his governing through decree, which is what happened the whole of 1990s when President Jelson had an oppositional communist-dominist-dominated parliament, Duma. So it could change the nature of Russian governance, not in a way that President Putin would like. Wow. Gilbert, Doctor,

thank you very much. Thanks for overcoming the Internet issues and thanks for your insight, as always, my dear friend. Safe travels, we'll look forward to seeing you next week. My pleasure.

Thank you. Coming up later today, at 10 this morning, if you're watching us live in 90 minutes, live from Tehran, Professor Muhammad Miranda. At 11 this morning, Professor Glenn Deeson,

at 2 this afternoon, I think he's in China. Pepe Escobar at three this afternoon, the great Phil Geraldi. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.