Judging Freedom - Prof. Gilbert Doctorow : How Weak Is NATO?

Episode Date: June 26, 2025

Prof. Gilbert Doctorow : How Weak Is NATO?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle III, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the Grandview shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in the supernatural thriller that will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series.

Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. you Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, June 26, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us now. Professor Doctorow, thank you very much. Let's start with NATO since they're not far from you and they were meeting this week, I guess many of them are still there. Can the NATO membership nations realistically spend five percent of their gross domestic product on defense as they seem to have promised to do they will do as recently as yesterday. Some people, myself included, have described the meeting in the Hague yesterday as political

theater. And I think there's a lot to it. It's not just watching the secretary general form over Donald Trump that makes this political theater It's what they all signed up to they signed up to to commitments that almost none of them can realize and I think that is known but is ignored for the same in the same way that the bombing mission in Iran was known by many people to have failed in terms of destroying the nuclear capabilities of Iran, but that was kept to the side because

it gets in the way of the whole purpose of the political theater. The theater was there not for us to have a good laugh at the expense of the Secretary General. The theater there was a new business, and it did it. It got a commitment from these countries, all member states of NATO, to something that, as I say, most of them cannot achieve for reasons that we can go into if we have the time. But that is not the end result. The end result is that Mr. Trump has created an exit ramp for the United States from NATO.

If these countries all are committed and signed in writing that they're going to raise their contributions by several trillion dollars in the coming decade, the United States correspondingly, it can reduce its commitment and its spending on NATO over that period. I don't see anybody looking at that fact. I think it is the same way as people are missing the real outcome of the political theater in Iran. It was not to amuse us, it was to do business.

And the business was to shut up Mr. Netanyahu, to prepare the ceasefire, which he had to gratefully accept, though not graciously, and to save Israel from itself. Something which I hope and expect Mr. Trump will use when he goes back to his donors and tells them, I just saved Israel for you. Now let's get rid of Prime Minister Netanyahu in a minute, but just to circle back to NATO if we could. Your colleague on this show, Professor Glenn Deason, has argued in agreeing with you that some of these NATO countries will use cooking the books to demonstrate to Trump that they've spent five percent. He gave the example of infrastructure, bridges and highways in Britain that will be suddenly

put on the defense budget. I mean, this is really a joke if Trump and his people fall for it. Do you share Professor Deason's view that this kind of trickery will be engaged in by these countries? Uh the the what you're talking about was in today's Telegraph in England. Um what I'm talking about took place six weeks earlier. Exactly that issue was raised in the pro-Atlanticist Belgian press. These are all rooting for NATO, but they are looking at the realities of political life in this country, in Belgium.

And the reality is that their government has no wiggle room to sincerely follow through in any commitments it makes. The this country already is the highest taxed in in europe if not in the world. They cannot raise taxes and they cannot take loans because the country is um is not a good um uh not a good standing with creditors that has a very high indebtedness. So where are they going to get the money? Only one place, by cutting social benefits. And that is political suicide. No government will stand when it starts doing that. We had a general strike yesterday.

They are like wildcat strikes every few days here. National strikes of transport protesting the rather minimal cuts in social benefits that this new government that came into power in January has instituted. To go from where we are now in Belgium for 1.3 percent of GDP to sign for military to 3.5 percent, which is the rock, the hard part of the 5 percent that everyone's talking about is beyond, is a bridge too far for Belgium and not just for Belgium, for many other countries in the EU. So they have given Mr Trump an empty promise, but which satisfies his needs. His need is to find a graceful way to take the United States out of NATO and they just gave it to him. But it's not going to be realistic. I mean, if the United States leaves NATO, and there's substantial support over here for that, and as I can take the pulse,

that will result in a significant diminution in spending for NATO. Let's backtrack a little. Doesn't Russia produce more armaments and projectiles than all of NATO combined? Oh it does. This came out, I think was even the secretary general made this statement of within the past week, that Russia alone produces four times the projectiles that are so important for ground warfare, for warfare of attrition that we're seeing now in Ukraine, four times what the United States and Europe combined produce. But just one step back, I overstated this. When I said pull back from NATO, I didn't mean leave it. You can't.

Legally, you can't. That requires the approval of Congress. But to reduce the spending on NATO, he can. And that is what he's now been given. I may have misspoken also. I meant reduce spending. He would love to leave NATO, but it's a treaty and it would require rescission by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, I don't think he would get that. No. Right. Now you, in your wonderful page-long missives that you sent, have pointed out something I haven't heard from anybody else. If NATO does increase its spending, what will the reaction in the Kremlin be?

increase its spending, what will the reaction in the Kremlin be? Well, what I was saying is that if they could do this, which they can't, but for argument's sake, if they could increase their contributions to defense budgets across the EU, across the NATO countries, and raised several trillion dollars in the next decade, then they would be digging their own graves. Because we have to look at the last 40 years of history to understand that there has been on each side, Russia, Soviet Union as it was, on the east and western Europe and United

States and NATO on the other side, they have looked this way and that way as to what kind of a military doctrine and strategy they have to have, given their appraisal of the other side. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, before Russia started to weaken and collapse our Soviet Union under Gorbachev, finally culminating in the December 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, disintegration of it. Before all that, when the Soviet Union was still relatively strong, the final period of Brezhnev, the beginning of the 80s, the Russians looked at NATO with alarm. It had maybe a million men in arms.

It had vast numbers of tanks. It had all kinds of military hardware in greater abundance and higher quality than they did. Well, in the 19th century, in the shootouts, you have the equalizer. The fellow who was the weaker side could be the winner in a duel if he had a better gun. Well, the equalizer in our age was nuclear weapons. Russia understood that it could not withstand the full invasion by NATO. And so it built an arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons that are unique in size and in variety

to meet every eventuality. Now, in the 21st century, under Mr. Putin, the situation has reversed itself. Europe's profiting from the end of the Soviet Union and it cut back its military expenses of funding and its arms production drastically to the point where Germany today has an army that's not worth talking about. That's not my appraisal of what they're saying among themselves publicly. They are one third the number of men at arms if they were in the 1990s, and we know that tanks hardly work. They have zero, no effective air defense.

So Europe is really exposed by its own choice because until the hyperactive propaganda of the Russian threat came into effect after 2008, Europe rightly understood that there was no threat from the East. So why would they spend their money on all this hardware and keep so many men at arms? They didn't. Now, in this present situation, this situation has flip-flopped from where it was in the 1980s. The Russians have the best European army, the best equipped, best trained, and the best

work experienced. Europe is weak militarily. Under these circumstances, okay, the Russians really have no intention of doing anything. We discussed this on your program in the past. The notion of a Russian threat is absolutely empty. They'll be quite happy to solve the problem in Ukraine and then to go back to their knitting. Do the European leaders make the same domino nonsensical argument that Joe Biden made, Vladimir Putin wants to take all of Ukraine and then he's going to go up into Warsaw and then aim for

Paris. Do they actually make this argument with a straight face in order to induce taxpayers to cough up more money or justify borrowing? I think they can do with a straight face because they're talking to one another. The broad public doesn't listen to them at all. The broad public is concerned about the price of the fuel for how it's feeding. But just, I just want to finish the argument that we were on. If Russia,

if Europe should build its muscles and do what the Russians read from the documents coming out of Brussels and Berlin and whatever, and build up their armed forces to pose again a threat of a million men against Russia, Russia is going to change its nuclear doctrine yet again and put heavy reliance on nuclear weapons. And we saw this. This is not my guessing. We saw this when Macron and Stammer said, we're planning to put 50,000 soldiers into

Ukraine in the coalition of the willing, supposedly, to enforce a ceasefire. The Russians said loudly, gentlemen, we are not going to fight you in the trenches. We are not going to lose our soldiers trying to remove 50,000 of yours. We will bomb you out of existence in a few minutes. That is the new reality. And if people in Berlin and London

and Brussels aren't watching that, they are asleep at the job. Chancellor, German Chancellor Mertz has suggested he could spend a trillion dollars in a year. I mean that's an astounding amount of money. That's what the US will be spending if Trump's so-called big beautiful bill passes? A, is that realistic? B, does anybody believe him? C, where would he get the money?

I'll come to those questions, but I'd like to say, what's a bigger issue? When we speak about Ukraine and providing them with additional military equipment, people raise their hand and say, but they don't have any men. And that's my answer to your issue. He can spend a trillion and he can build more tanks. And they can manufacture various types of air defenses, which are useless against hypersonic missiles, as we now know,

and as he should know. Anyway, they can build all this military hardware, but he can't find the soldiers. They did an advertising campaign in Germany. They made it attractive for young men and women to enlist. And I think in a month they got about 500 recruits. Oh, good Lord. They need a drop in the bucket. They need a few hundred. They need 100,000, not 500. And Pistorius, in the last two or three days, Pistorius is a defense minister who was formerly defense minister under the socialist government of Schultz. He came out saying that we cannot get volunteers, we will be obliged to introduce a draft. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that will be the end of this coalition government.

Mr. Pistorius may be a socialist, but he doesn't speak for his party. His party said they will leave the coalition and the government will fall. If the government falls, well, that is the end of this military buildup. As I said, without personnel, the hardware is useless. Got it. Got it. What is the status of things in Ukraine? Well, the world's eyes and the media's attention has been focused on Israel, Iran and Trump's bombing. What is happening on the ground in Ukraine? Well, something is happening. We've commented in the last few weeks that the conflict in the Middle East had certain benefits for Russia in that the United States withdrew various air defense systems, took them to the Middle East to safeguard its own military bases in the Gulf states, and that the United States stopped, essentially

stopped supplying material to Ukraine because it was saving, hoarding it for Israel and any other eventuality in that region. But there's something else we haven't talked about. The Russians have become much more aggressive in hard punching in their ongoing battle in Ukraine. The strikes on Kiev were much more severe than anything in the last three years, strikes in the last two weeks, I mean. The reasons are clear. Not only do they not have anything resembling an air defense, but the Russians are not getting

bad publicity. Russia and its crimes against humanity, Ukraine's barbarism to take the words out of Mr. Starmor. Hey, that's gone to page 20 in the newspaper. On the front page, all we read about is the devastation that each of the parties, Iran and Israel, are visiting one another. And Russia is getting a free ride to do what has to be done in Ukraine. How much longer can Zelensky last? As long as they let him. He's not going anywhere until and unless the United States throws him under the bus,

which may well happen, but at present, the people around it, let's make this clear, he's not the own, he's not a singular madman. The people who were there in power before him are saying virtually the same thing, whether it's Poroshenko, who was immediately before Zelensky came to power, sorry, not immediately before, but he was in the camp before Zelensky, before. Then Timoshenko. These are big names. They're in the Rada. They're in the

the parliament and they would be you could look at them as well. Do we have an alternative to Mr. Zelensky if he's pushed out from among the politicians? We don't. The only place where you could possibly find reason would be in the military. What is your view as to who prevailed in the Israeli-Iran-U.S. 12-day kerfuffle that ended with Trump's bombs? I think we're all seeing that when we turn on YouTube. Let's face it. Israel had a very strict military censorship which prevented the Western journalists, whether they were Reuters or the BBC or CNN, they were in Israel, but they could not report

on Israel. They could not show images of the destruction around them. You had some small piddling videos of this apartment having been hit or the glass shattered rubbish. As we now are seeing, just go to YouTube and you will see not fake news, but real images of major residential and business towers in Tel Aviv that are shattered,

that will have to be torn down because they're no longer structurally sound. You see, you're beginning to see the same images coming from Haifa. We had my own inputs. I don't have, like Colonel MacGregor, I don't have military counterparts who exchange information with me. But I am on Indian radio, television. I watch closely a couple of these international broadcasters who are respectable. There are a lot of fake news outlets in India, but there are several very respectable ones. And they've been, from their own sources, been providing information.

And then there are the Russians. And I don't mean Russians who are sitting in russia i mean the russians who are given the microphone in jerusalem and they are emigres from russia who are interviewed by russian journalists and what do they say well their apartment is just been knocked out of the in fact the 25 year long uh lead journalist of Russian state television was showing his apartment where all the glass was knocked out. So you can imagine that the destruction is pretty widespread if even he was hit by it.

And that's not to talk about the real infrastructure, what electricity generating plants were doomed, what port facilities in Haifa were utterly destroyed, and even without destruction you've got the war risks that made Haifa useless. No merchant vessel would go near Haifa given the risks of destruction. So the damage to the Israeli economy was very severe. It's only now beginning to come out. The Israelis have one major international airport, Ben Gurion, it's still closed. They have suffered enormously and you've mentioned this in your latest programs.

The result of all this is in effect Israel lost the war. Now Donald Trump and the people around him saw and knew that. And that's why I say that the theater that we saw that we were exposed to of empty shell sites in Iran having been hit, that was not just amusement and it was not an empty act. It was an act with a consequence that surely was planned. And that is namely to take away from Mr. Netanyahu any reason to continue the war

or to deny that Israel has lost it. What did the United States gain by that bombing? Well, here I agree with Colonel McGregor. It's keeping the United States out of deeper involvement. It was a, they bombed bases which were certainly known to have been emptied out. They did not intend to cause loss of life or casualties. I believe there was some advanced notification that this was coming for the Iranians. And it's the same thing that Iran did in its attack or counterattack on the American base in Qatar.

This was a 19th century duel. When your honor is compromised, as a gentleman you were obliged to pick up the glove that was thrown at your feet and to arrange with your seconds for a duel with pistols. But you were not obliged to kill your opponent. It was perfectly acceptable to fire in the air. That way you acquitted your humiliation and nobody was hurt. That's what's just happened now. Professor, a terrific analysis. Thank you very much for it. I just have images in my head of Aaron Burr and Alexander

Hamilton in Weehawken, New Jersey. Hamilton must have expected that Burr would shoot in the air. And of course, he didn't. And Hamilton died on the spot. Oh, well, we'll see where this goes. But thank you very much for your analysis. Thank you for the notes that you keep sending. Very, very insightful. And we'll look forward to seeing you again next week, my dear friend. Yeah, it's my pleasure. Thank you. Thank you. And coming up later today,

two more of our heavyweights. By heavyweights, I mean a lot of you like to watch. At 11 o'clock this morning, Professor Jeffrey Sachs. and at one o'clock this afternoon, Professor John Mearsheimer, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. MUSIC