Judging Freedom - Prof. Gilbert Doctorow Germany and May 9th.

Episode Date: April 17, 2025

Prof. Gilbert Doctorow Germany and May 9th.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the Bay with WGU. With courses available online 24-7 and monthly start dates, WGU offers maximum flexibility so you can focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, April 17th, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us now. Professor Doctorow, welcome here. You have a fascinating piece out about Germany and May 9th and the significance of all of it, but before we get there, and we will, a couple of other questions. Do you have a feeling from your position in Brussels that the neocons around President Trump are ascendant.

We have a feeling here in Brussels that the neocons, domestic neocons in Europe, are ascendant also. So the problem is not just a Washington issue. But if you meant by the neocons, the hardliner people within Trump's circle, that is Rubio and Kellogg, and yes, the Russians are certainly aware of that, I'm aware of that. But to say they're ascendant, I think, is an exaggeration.

The problems that we see that the Russians have identified very clearly in the last few days is Trump's ability and willingness to do what is necessary to put through his agenda. I think a lot of people here were struck by his wobbling and by his backtracking on his chaotically introduced tariffs that put in question his ability to negotiate. Well, back to the neocons, and maybe ascendant is too strong a word, the Wall Street Journal reports that they have his ear. They were reluctant to have his ear in promoting their neocon ways until recently. Max Blumenthal, who will be on shortly after your reports that the dismissals at the Pentagon, which have shaken it up mightily, were caused by a leak to the

New York Times of the neocons being ascendant and breaking with the America firsters. And that shockingly, Secretary Hegseth was not among the neocons, that he was urging the president to tell Prime Minister Netanyahu not to attack Iran. I don't want to get too into the weeds, but is Donald Trump perceived in Europe as being on both sides of these issues, a man of peace and a man of war at the same time? Oh, very definitely. There's a lot of confusion and there's reason for the confusion. As I mentioned a moment ago,

his wobbling has caused a lot of uncertainty about where he really stands and how tough he's going to fight for the initiatives that he rolled out in first days of his presidency. That remains the case. That is true in Europe, for sure. Look, he was saying there are all indications that he's backing away from NATO. And then it was yesterday or maybe four, there's the announcement that after all, America is sending 5,000 troops to the new forthcoming NATO exercises.

So whether it is neocons who are influencing him or other factors, he is not pursuing a clearly defined policy and he reverses himself, which is not good for him and not good for his eventual success. As you read the American neocons, do they want the war in Ukraine to end or they want it to continue? Oh they want it to continue and this they are definitely the natural allies of the certainly the natural allies of the Europeans who have their own reasons for wanting the war to continue because they are the ascendant, they have staked their careers on this and they are looking for the hustle Russia as a unifying factor in an otherwise crumbling European Union. You and almost everyone on this show has been very, have been very critical

of Sir Keir Stormer and French President Macron in their efforts to cobble together. This is a totally discredited Bush-Cheney phrase, but why they're using it, I don't know, coalition of the willing. Is a new partner about to join that effort coming from Berlin? Join the effort? I'm not sure that is a proper way to look at it. These two, they also have their own competition, who is going to be the top dog, who is the one who is going to be the most important defense authority in Europe, that is, Stammer and Macron. They are vying, they're competing for that title. At the same time, the German incoming chancellor

is not making common cause with them. He is in the same competitive situation, trying to position Germany and himself as the leaders, the dominant force in Europe's coming defense. He's doing it by Europe's coming defense. He's doing it by building on the very aggressive, belligerent statements towards Russia that he used as part of his electoral campaign. You have referred to Frederick Mertz, and I quote, as the most dangerous German leader since Adolf Hitler, a very, very serious statement. What did you mean by that and why did you say it? Well, first of all, I don't think he had too much competition for that role. Okay. Look at who he's replacing. Look at who he's succeeding.

I can barely get words out of his mouth. Go ahead. Yeah. So you had mealy mouthed people who have put Germany in risky positions and here he is by his belligerence towards Russia and by his obvious willingness to take on risks that his predecessor or soon-to-be predecessor, Sch, Shots refused to take on, namely giving the Ukrainians the cruise missiles that they have longed for. This is the Taurus, which is an air-launched missile

that the Russians have little or no experience combating. So at the outset, should it be in the hands of the Ukrainians, it could indeed do some damage where the previous long-range missiles, either coming from the States or mostly from Britain and France, the scalp and the storm shadow, the Russians mastered those, found ways of neutralizing them. But the Taurus could be dangerous. And just speaking about sending Taurus to Ukraine, the numbers, let's go to the numbers. Germany has 600 of these in stock.

What's being discussed is shipping 160 to Ukraine. The shipping them is the only beginning of the task. The reason why, as we all know, the reason why Schultz refused to give the towers to Ukraine was his knowledge from Leicht, the conversations between senior German Air Force officers, that this product was usable only if it were programmed and controlled by the German manufacturer and German personnel. And that would expose Germany to the charges of being a co-obligerant. So who refused? Mr Metz is ignoring this completely.

I mean does he want a war with Russia? Can Germany afford the consequences of becoming a co-belligerent? And the United States is already a co-belligerent and the Russians have been extremely restrained under international law. I hate to say this, the Russians could attack Miami if they wanted. But doesn't Mertz fear the consequence of becoming a co-belligerent? Well the risks have changed over time. The coming to power of Donald Trump and the new doubts about the United States willingness to defend its NATO allies, that changes the equation. And frankly, it is quite stunning that the United States doesn't recognize this. As you just mentioned, the Russians had the legal basis for attacking the United States in response to its co-belligerent status, its direct intervention in the Ukraine War

by the intelligence and by the programming of its missiles that it has done for PIA. Now the situation presently is that Germany by supplying such equipment and necessarily providing the hands-on control of this equipment of its own officers and manufacturers would be taking the risk of a Russian counter-strike on Germany itself. And the notion that the Article 5 would be invoked and would be responded to positively is a very risky proposition today. Somehow, Metz has not seen that. So he is waving a red flag. It gets worse.

Not just would they supply these 160 towers to Ukraine, but they are recommending that Ukraine use this to target the Kerch Bridge, that is the bridge that links mainland Russia with the peninsula of Crimea. That's a billion-dollar range. Yes, and other vital infrastructure that supports the Russian logistics for the war, saying this could change the dynamics of the war in Ukraine's favor. That he says this publicly is remarkable that his father fought within the German armies and was a Nazi supporter has been called up by the Russians in response to what they see as provocative and totally irresponsible statements coming from the incoming chance. Back to Stormer and McCrone.

Do they have the financial resources to achieve what they're trying to put together? The coalition of the willing would only make sense from their perspective if there were military assets involved. Do they have them? It would make sense if they had willing. Apparently they don't have any willing other than the two of them.

The British have no military of which to speak. I'm not familiar with what the French have. You can educate us, but where are they going with this? I suppose we have to add the Princess von der Leyen to all of this. She doesn't have a military either, but she'd love nothing more than to be, correct me if I'm wrong, Professor, the commander in chief of the European armies, wouldn't she? Well, she's a cheerleader. But the two of them are not completely alone.

They have three other European member states that have joined the coalition of the ruling. Regrettably for military value, when you add all three together, you come up with zero. I'm speaking about the three Baltic states. The total population of all three of them is probably under four million or closer to five million, but their armies are negligible. We're speaking about the equivalent of police forces. They have nothing to contribute. Where is it going to go then? Nowhere. The effort to assemble the coalition of the willing, it's going to fall flat on their faces. Maybe that's why President Macron is talking about

recognizing a Palestinian state, getting the public's mind off of whatever he's trying to accomplish in Ukraine. Well, he has his own ambitions still in Ukraine. And the ambitions of Macron, to a lesser extent, those of Starmere, are focused on one city. The city is Odessa. And as for the French, it is a certain nostalgia.

Let's remember that the first mayor of the city of Odessa in the late 18th century was a certain Duke de Richelieu, the French Duke. And there's a monument to him in downtown Odessa. So there is a certain claim that the French have for being protectors, shall we say, of Odessa. For the British, it's much more practical. Odessa is a staging ground for their activities in the Black Sea, and it is close, if you look at that,

a direct line to the Crimean Peninsula. So for their military purposes, to cause havoc in Russian-owned Crimea, Odessa has great importance. Of course, it's also the principal port of commercial activities of Ukraine. So this is the city in Ukraine, which they have focused their attention on. As to the coalition of the willing, that is largely posturing, and it would be

to cover up any operation that they would take focused on Odessa. Odessa is also conveniently close to the Romanian border. So it is conceivable that without talking about beast keepers over the whole thousand kilometer long line of engagement, these two powers of France and Britain could concentrate their efforts on one city for which they probably have sufficient manpower and equipment. That is a city being a desert. Let me ask you about Germany. Has the Nord Stream pipeline been repaired? No. Well, there are two pipelines. The one that is still almost usable, that is the pipeline was ready to be put into service and then was refused acceptance by the Germans. It has some problems. You can't keep a pipeline like this inactive for two, three years with no maintenance, but to restart it is probably an easy matter. The first pipeline, the one that was blown up, also was salvageable, but it will take

considerably bigger investment in time to restore it. The issue, of course, is that the Germans remain, and under Mets are likely to remain vehemently opposed to taking Russian gas, even if it's essential for their economy to recover. Very interesting. And I have that image in my mind of Chancellor Scholl's standing blithely, meekly next to President Biden. As Biden says, we'll take care of the Nord Stream pipeline. He obviously knew what was going on. Switching gears, the Kellogg plan, the plan put forth by General Kellogg. It's hard to imagine this was not run past Donald Trump.

It's harder to imagine that Trump approved of it Nevertheless, the plan would divide Ukraine sort of the way Germany was divided At the end of World War two among the Allies Into three or four protectorates. How was this viewed in Europe? In Europe, I can't say. I don't think they give him too much attention to General Kellogg. And still it is something that's hanging in the air.

It doesn't have the backing of Donald Trump. So it's not clear where it's headed. I will say something about the Russians view. Probably more positively than you would anticipate. The thing about, in fact, when I'm written about this Kellogg plan versus the position of Steve Wittkopf, I got a comment saying, well, what's the difference between them after all? Because both parties are recognizing Russian possession of the four obelisks that is now

occupying largely in eastern Ukraine plus Crimea. In that sense, both Kellogg and Rytkoff are saying the same thing. But Putin would never agree to American troops in western Ukraine, would he? No, no. The issue of the troops and the real difference between Witkoff and Kellogg is over what about the rest of Ukraine. That Kellogg, as we know, is speaking about Western troops in the westernmost part of Ukraine, the center of Ukraine being a kind of rump state, a neutral state of, presumably neutral state of Ukraine, and the Russians owning the eastern part. Nonetheless, I want to look at this from, take a step back. They are talking, Rydkov and Kellogg are talking about the end game.

Let's remember that when Trump rolled out his initiative, it was only about a ceasefire. And the Russians were complaining, hey, wait a minute, this doesn't count. Where is the end game? So the Americans have taken on board, whether it's Kellogg is a hardliner to get a Rubio, or it is Steve Witkoff as the soft guy

who is taking on board and accepting Russia's basic demands, they all are dealing with the end game, not with the ceasefire. Now, we're approaching the deadline that Donald Trump gave for acceptance of the ceasefire, and that is the 20th of April. The point I want to make here is that the Russians are being blamed for the delays. I think this is dead wrong. I think the blame for the delays is on the desk of Donald Trump. He doesn't have the guts so far to do what's necessary for the agreements to be reached.

Namely, he has not taken on Europe. Without Europe being challenged and put in its place, without their understanding who's who, the bosses of the United States don't have any mistake about it, without that happening there will be neither a ceasefire nor a peace treaty that is brokered by Trump. And so far, he shows no sign of taking on Europe. Does the Kellogg Plan mention NATO? NATO, no. NATO member states, yes. I don't think he would in any way challenge the remarks that Donald Trump made soon after

taking office that the United States will not provide Article 5 coverage for any Western European military that is put into Ukraine under the name of peacekeepers or whatever. So no, he wouldn't overrule that. But what kind of an administration listens to Steve Witkoff in one ear and Lindsey Graham in the other? Donald Trump is a Catholic in more than one sense and he's listening to all sides and he's leaving everybody guessing.

This can only carry you so far. And I think he's running at the outer limits of where this negotiating tactic works and coming up to the point where it stops working. If he cannot make a decision and take the consequences, then he's going to lose on all fronts. Professor Doctorow, a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for your analysis, safe travels.

Happy Easter, and we'll look forward to seeing you next week. Happy Easter to all of you, thank you. Thank you. And coming up later today at 11 o'clock this morning with some explosive information about an American being kicked out of the United States. Oops, could I have made a mistake on this one? Max Blumenthal at 11, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson at 2, and the always worth waiting for Professor John Mearsheimer at three. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. You