Judging Freedom - Gilbert Doctorow : What Is Putin’s Strategy?

Episode Date: August 26, 2026

Gilbert Doctorow : What Is Putin’s Strategy?See 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 August 26th 2026 Gilbert doctor our will be with us in just a moment. What is President Putin's strategy in the special military operation? Why don't we know what it is? But first this. Throughout history, governments have rarely surrendered power voluntarily. They seek more control over our money, our movements, and ultimately our freedoms. That's why it's smart to understand your legal options before you need them. I'd like to recommend a free special report from McKell Thorpe, founder of expat money.

For more than 26 years, McKell has lived as an expat, helping families, entrepreneurs, and investors build a legal plan B through overseas residency and second citizenship. McKell's free report, Plan B, Residencies and Instant Citizenships, explains some of the best plans available. If preserving your freedoms and expanding your options are important, to you, get your free report at expatmoney.com slash judge. Be sure to use my link in the description so that McKell knows you're a judging freedom fan. That's expatmoney.com slash judge.

Gilbert Doctor, are welcome here, my dear friend. Thank you very much for all of the emails that you send me with your views and other inside information, which I can't really get here. in the West. A few days ago, you were of the belief that the Kremlin had decided to attack transportation routes. That would be highways and rail lines between Ukraine and Romania, Ukraine and Slovakia, Ukraine and Poland. Did this happen? We have reason to believe that it happened, but the signals were misleading, try to put it that way. This news item was one of the starting items in the general time allotment to the war, at which each of the news of the week, the premier wrap-up of the week's events on a Sunday program,

they opened with such a half an hour about the war. And within that, we're just a third of the way into that, Yvgeny Popov, who was acting as the host of the show. He showed on the screen, the main border crossing points, which they attacked, which the Russians say they attacked already. And it was, I found this very encouraging, encouraging in terms of realization of the strategy that I hope that I thought that the Kremlin was shifting to, that is away from a war of attrition. to a sudden death strangulation of Ukraine strategy, which could be performed by cutting off all of the Western military material coming in, coming in by sea and coming in by land.

We all know that Russia had attacked Odessa, it had attacked Nikolaev, Primorsk, and Chernomorsk, that is, and these are Black Sea. ports of Ukraine, the most important, of course being a desert. Andy's Mile, which is a port of the Danube for transshipment from Romania. These seaports essentially have been closed. There is something like a blockade of Ukraine that's being carried out by the other Russians in the Black Sea. And that looked like step one.

But of course, if you only have all the sea routes covered, then infiltration of transport on the land routes remains possible and strangulation is not feasible. So the announcement that the Russians were now attacking the land routes looked like a change in strategy. However, as I understood the next day, notwithstanding the bombardment of Kiev that had been quite fierce in the preceding days, obviously it was halted to allow the the leaders of the Baltic states, Denmark and Norway

to come to Kiev and to meet with Zelensky as they did on Sundays this past Sunday and signed agreements in the presence of leaders, the business leaders of companies in these countries making drones for the sake of transfer of technology and supply of Finnish drones to Ukraine. Well, you have to ask, why didn't the Russians disrupt this travel, this diplomatic travel? And then the next day, we're the 24th of August, which was celebrated in Ukraine as Independence Day,

Independence from the Soviet Union. you had the British Prime Minister Andy Burnham showing up, meeting with Zelensky, and agreeing on the transfer of the technology to manufacture Storm Shadow dash scalp. These are two versions of essentially the same medium-range missile that was developed jointly by England, that's Storm Shadow, and by France. version called scalp. That this technology would be handed over to the Ukrainians so if they could begin local production. And these are about 300,500 kilometer range. They're not deep penetration in Russia, but they could do a pretty good job. And they were initially used on the

first deliveries, it goes back more than two years, to attempt to attack the carriage bridge. Well, of course, if vast numbers are produced in Ukraine, then surely enormous destruction within all kinds of physical objects within the range will be taking place. So why was Burnham allowed to go there? Why was the so-called coalition of the Willing allowed to have a conference with Zelensky sitting in his offices in Kiev? Why did this happen? That is directly in contradiction to the notion of a strangulation of Ukraine. And it makes me wonder what exactly is Putin's strategy? Is it remaining with the slow grinding war of attrition? Or is he moving towards with both feet, not with one foot, towards a changeover to the sudden death approach by strangulation of Ukraine? I mean, why are meeting so

ostentatious and even reckless. They could have all been killed with one ballistic missile. Surely FSB knew they were coming, knew they were there, knew who they were, knew their roots of travel. Exactly. I mean, there are coming their nose at the Kremlin, metaphorically speaking. I agree with you precisely, that characterization. And it is not good for Russia's sovereignty and for Russia's deterrent factor. If just as, let's go back in week, when it first became clear that the from the Guardian article informing the public, this is the guardian of Britain, informing the public that it was British long-range drones that were being used to carry out these devastating attacks on Russian refineries and logistics infrastructure, like that.

like wildberries initially and most recently, the second largest retailer online ozone. They have had very destructive attacks on their facilities across Russia. But these attacks would be carried out by British missiles. That came out. And then it was repeated and picked up by the BBC.

It was expanded upon so the names of the manufacturing manufacturers there were, were released to the public. And the Russians responded with the statement of, there will be consequences. Well, have there been any consequences? No. Just as following the agreement of Burnham

to turn over the storm shadow technology to Ukraine, we heard Peskov, President Putin's press secretary, saying, oh, this, that does not go down well. It is not a good indication for our developing relations. My goodness, that isn't a threat. It is even more watered down than the statement that there will be consequences. So what exactly is the Kremlin have in mind? It's clearly not to strike against these factories with its missiles.

And we have to draw the conclusion that the, The Kremlin is a gunshot, but it is as yet unwilling to take what I consider to be, this is of course of my personal opinion, it's not a widely held opinion, but I consider that strikes on these factories by Russia have little risk of causing a European war. Whereas not doing anything, which is essentially what we see now, other than indignant letters, so I speak, raises the risk enormously of sometime in the not too distant future that war hitting us. Well, what is the state of the Russian military today? Is it exhausted like the IDF?

Is it depleted like the Ukraine military? Is it refreshed? Because they have such an enormous number of... people in the military and an enormous base from which to draw both volunteers and conscripts? Paul, your last description surely fits the situation. Refreshed might be too optimistic, but certainly holding its own. The broad Russian public is putting up with the inconveniences of these fuel shortages. That was even on the BBC when Steve Rosenberg We did about a 10-minute special report for the BBC World News.

He interviewed Russians, the point they had videos showing these three-hour wait at petrol stations in Moscow. I'm sure it's as bad or worse in provincial towns, waiting for it to fill up their cars. And he asked people what they thought, and they were generally supportive. and not complaining and not certainly not pointing a finger with the government. All of that is true. But it does not mean that the country is indifferent or the economy is indifferent to a growing shock. And the more important, we have to look beyond our noses. And I'm afraid that many of my colleagues are not looking beyond the noses

to accept the fact that the Ukrainian's ability to strike at these refineries and logistic centers, proves not only excellent intelligence, which is largely probably coming from satellite reconnaissance from the United States, but also they are able to strike at will anyway. We know that yesterday the Russians claimed to have shot down 450 Ukraine drones. Wonderful, but some drones get through.

And you have reports of civilian casualties, and you have reports all over the place in Russia, and you have reports, of course, that these various targets are hit and some of them severely damaged. That means that the Ukrainians at will can strike anywhere of Russia. And our news, what you see, that were all of the Western media, talking about poor Mr. Zelensky and how his country is vulnerable to Russian missiles because it has no adequate air defenses, they're turning a blind eye,

or they're willingly failing to say that essentially Russia is defenseless against these drones. Now, they're not missiles. They don't carry 500 kilograms of explosives, but they're doing a pretty good job with rather modest quantities of explosives. Whole refineries are put out of commission. Has Zelensky recently either boasted or intimated that he thinks he can negotiate directly with Putin an end to all or part of this war? The latter is true, part of. And I was asked to comment on this just a couple of days ago

when it was reported that Zelensky was proposing to negotiate with President Putin a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea. That is his latest proposal, he's not speaking about full-scale ceasefire or peace treaty, whatever it will like. He's speaking about cutting back on the Russian attacks on ships in the Black Sea and on the ships in harbor in various Ukrainian ports. And the real issue there is to, on the part of Zelensky, is to allow passage of the grain carrying ships, which the grain, is accounts for about one half of the total foreign currency earnings of Ukraine, and they are now

stopped completely. So it is in Ukraine's interests that this kind of partial ceasefire be agreed with Russians, when it's absolutely not in Russia's interests to agree on that by itself, because the attacks on grain exports are Russia's answer to the attacks by, you know, Ukraine on the Russian refineries and export installations of Russia's oil and gas. This is economic warfare by both parties, and they have to be interlinked, which, of course, was not part of Zelensky's proposal. I mean, it's inconceivable to me that Putin would sit down with Zelensky under any circumstances other than perhaps to sign an unconditional surrender. What military achievement

would satisfy the Kremlin? The neutralization of Ukraine, a change of government. That is the military achievement that would achieve, that would bring home first and most important or first two or three points that President Putin outlined when he initiated the special military operation. The denazification is another way of saying regime change. The neutralization of Ukraine is another way of saying regime change. So this brings us back to the question of Mr. Zelensky and his future. The position of Donald Trump, in respect to these peace between Ukraine and the question, Ukraine and Russia is very hard to read.

The United States is probably the biggest contributor to Ukraine's offensive actions against Russia by supplying the critically important reconnaissance satellite and air reconnaissance, which permits programming of missiles and drones against Russia. At the same time, the movements against Zelensky, which we've seen in the last week. That is a former prime minister who said that Zelensky himself is implicated in corruption and that the agency that the United States have forced Zelensky to reinstate the agency investigating corruption is circling Zelensky. At the same time, Theodorov, the recently fired Minister of Defense has been calling for elections now.

Now, I find it hard to believe that these things would happen, that these two movements against Zelensky would occur without firm backing from the United States, meaning that Trump is also working to bring down Zelensky. So it's hard to understand what's going on, and perhaps that mysterious visit of CIA CIA director Radcliffe to Vasco yesterday dealt with these unknown and mysterious sides to Trump's policies. I was going to ask you if we have any indication if there was anything in European or

Russian media that didn't make its way across the Atlantic, which you might characterize as educated, sophisticated speculation as to what John Ratcliffe was doing for four years. hours in the Kremlin. He flew in and out on the same day. He didn't even stay overnight. Yes. The Russians have tamped down all speculation. Say again, please. The Russians have tamped down all and any and all speculation about Radcliffe's mission and with whom we met. When I reread the words from Pierskov, it is even harder to understand what happened because the only He says that a meeting with Putin was, had not been planned.

It doesn't say that there was never a meeting with Putin. But from Pierskov, we understood that the meeting was to take place with Radcliffe's counterpart in the Russian intelligence agency. Well, I mean, has Trump made any noises of which you're aware indicating his, czar and self-generated, arrogant view that he can put an end to the special military operation as the mediator between Zelensky and Putin? And if so, why would the Russians accept as a mediator, somebody who tried to kill the Russian president?

Well, no, there have been no new developments in that front. Just again, the Ratcliffe's visit was unexpected, whereas the visit by a visit by Whitkoff and Kushner had been expected. Neither of them went to Kiev, nor did they go to Moscow. So it's hard to understand that perhaps they were intimidated by the bombing campaign. Did Whitkoff and Kushner recently plan and then cancel a trip to Russia? It was neither officially scheduled nor officially canceled, but it was unofficially expected. expected, together with his planned visit to Kiev, neither took place.

Neither visiting took place. We don't know why. How can you explain the unique Russophobia in Great Britain? I mean, here you have Andy Burnham promising radical changes from Cirqueur Storm. There's no change at all. If anything, the support for Ukraine is more. more ostentatious than under Prime Minister Starmor? Yes, this is very curious, and I can say that analysts who are quite clever and

periscacious and informed are also stumped. I was listening to one colleague on the Indian broadcast, which I participated in from other matter, who was saying that Burnham doesn't have any particular enthusiasm for Ukraine and was doing this visit and as a necessary act not to create opposition to his policies, which involve many changes in the way the British government operates and require the support of his party and others. So he didn't want to add to complicate that life by taking a different position on Ukraine, even though he personally is not sympathetic. Then we see, as you just said, he has gone beyond stuff.

And in his generosity to Ukraine, and after all, his first trip abroad, his prime minister was, not to Washington, he's hoping to do that a week or so, but to Kiev, that is a very big signal. And so it is perplexing that there has not been an adequate answer coming out of the Kremlin to burn. You have said many times that if the Kremlin wanted to, it could end this war in a week. What will it take for Vladimir Putin to agree with you? Or not agree with you. He probably does agree with you. To follow up on this, to carry it out.

I don't know. That is really the question of the day. What is holding Vladimir Putin back from doing the obvious, which is essentially a decapitation strike? Or short of that, a full strangulation, as I just indicated, to declare that you are closing land routes and then withhold, stop, haltable attacks on those land routes and on Kiev itself to allow, all these diplomatic missions from the Scandinavia and then from the coalition of the willing to occur is highly contradictory and puts in doubt your sincerity about the strangulation strategy. So we are left dumbfounded and I don't have an answer for what is holding him back. I mean, generally one could suppose that he does not want to assume the risks of what could be an escalation towards a nuclear war. That is a very reasonable concern. But the problem is, is exactly what the very same President Fuchin described

from his learnings as an adolescent or as a child. That is a bully in the schoolyard. You go and you hit him first. And he is not doing that today. He has definitely moved away from that approach to dealing with bullies and with threats. So I don't have an answer, whether this caution is his own, whether is age-related, whether it is imposed by oligarchs, as some people suppose, I don't have an answer to it.

But it is a matter that deserves full discussion among experts, such as you have on your show, and should not be swept into the carpet. Gilbert Dr. O, another fascinating conversation. Thank you very much for it. Because of my traveling, we may need to ask you if you are available at another time or day, but we will get you on next week. All the best, my dear friend. All right to you.

Thank you. Coming up later today, if you're watching us live in 90 minutes or so, Professor Glenn Deeson at 10 o'clock and at three this afternoon, the great Phil Giraldi, Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.