Judging Freedom - Prof. Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: Are Russian Threats Serious?

Episode Date: June 6, 2024

Prof. Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: Are Russian Threats Serious?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, June 6th, 2024. Our guest this morning is Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, world-renowned authority on all things Russian. Dr. Doctorow, welcome here. You know, the last time we chatted, it's just a little bit of a personal thing I meant to ask you. You probably know this book, The Icon and the Axe, by James Hadley Billington. I was a student of Professor Billington's at Princeton University. I want to

tell you how long ago that was. It was a long time ago. But he was a great human being who piqued my interest in Russia. The book is still a classic. I'm sure you're familiar with it. Oh, yes. He was one of the most important, most prominent scholars of Russia at the time. There were a few other names I could make, but certainly he did very well among the public. Yes, a great person, and then got tired of teaching at Princeton, was a candidate for the presidency of the university, didn't get it, and Ronald Reagan made him the Librarian of Congress, which is the largest library in the world. He was ecstatic. This last 10 or 15 years,

he invited me for a private tour of the library. If you're a bibliophile as I am, and I suspect you are, it was quite a treat. Okay, enough about that. The essence of what I want to ask you is, are the Russian threats serious? I will start out by reminding the audience what they have heard me say before. France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and the United States have all authorized Ukraine to use offensive weaponry that those five countries have sent to Ukraine to attack targets inside Russia. How dangerous is this for those five countries? What do you expect, forgive the double question, Professor, the Russian response will be? Nobody knows what the Russian response will be, and that is a problem. It's a problem within Russia. President Putin

has come under substantial pressure from the chatting classes in Russia for not having pinned down what Russian responses may be and for allowing himself and Russia as a country to be considered bluff in the West. The West, various Western countries have crossed a number of red lines that Russia has laid down from time to time without suffering any penalty for that. And there are those in Washington and in Western Europe who are saying that this is also a bluff and there'll be no pain to pay, price to pay for any attacks that are made using French, British, American missiles, long-range missiles, going from Ukrainian territory and hitting strategic targets in Russia or residential targets because the Ukrainians have been quite interested in

creating havoc and terror in Russia. Mr. Putin yesterday gave one answer to this question when he had a press conference with representatives of leading press, various media organizations from 16 countries. And he was asked, just the question you've posed, what will happen next? And he said that Russia could respond in an asymmetrical manner, giving to countries which are in a position to cause substantial damage to American assets, weapons that they could use for that purpose. What comes to mind, of course, is providing weapons to the Houthis, to the militia in Syria and in Iraq to attack American military bases and personnel in the Middle Eastern region. However, I don't believe that. We can follow Mr. Putin closely.

I can read his speeches. I can analyze what he says. And I don't agree with him and everything he says. I think every politician has the right and sometimes the obligation to lie. And I don't know if this was a lie, but I don't think it is an accurate or comprehensive answer to a very pertinent question.

All right, let me run a clip of this very pertinent question. The question is not on the clip, but he does not like the question because the questioner, and you'll see the look on her face when he chastises her, you probably have seen this, the questioner asks him about the use of nuclear weapons. He reminds the world it's a very grave subject. Only one country in the history of the world has used nuclear weapons. Obviously, the United States in Japan during World War II. But this is about a minute and a half long. I'm anxious to hear your thoughts. You'll understand the Russian, but we're going to play the English translation for the sake of the audience. Chris, cut number seven. There are always accusations flung at us that we are nuclear cyber-rattling, but am I the one

asking the question about the possible nuclear war? You were the one to ask the question. You are pushing me towards this question, and then you'll say that I've been, you know, brandishing the nuclear truncheon. You know, this is a very grave subject. The U.S. is the only country to have used nuclear weapons during the Second World War. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, 20 kilotons. Our tactical nuclear weapons is 70, 75 kilotons, just the tactical nuclear weapons. So let's not push the situation towards the point when even a threat is involved, let alone the use

of nuclear weapons. For some reason, the West believes that Russia is never going to resort to that. But we've got the nuclear doctrine in place. Have a look at it. What does it say? It says that someone else's actions threaten our sovereignty or territorial integrity, then we believe

we have the right to use all the tools at our disposal. And no one should take that lightly or superficially there needs to be a professional view of that all the tools at our disposal no one should take that lightly or superficially doctor doctor oh you are one of the world's foremost authorities on interpreting this man. How do you interpret what he just said? 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. I think it's unfortunate that he phrased his answer in that way because he remains vague and he's staying in the realm of a nuclear response to a non-nuclear threat. I don't believe

that that is the scenario that has much likelihood to happen. The question of a Russian response to an attack on critical infrastructure coming from Ukraine, being guided by American, British, or German, or French manufacturers and experts of the equipment of the missiles that have been sent Russia's way. This is, can be read variously. I think that some of my peers and people who have appeared on your show, I think of Scott Ritter's presence two days ago, in which the assumption was that this challenge that is approved by Biden and approved by Sunak

and by Macron can lead us straight to a nuclear war between the United States and Russia. In a communication this morning that was on Sonar, Larry Johnson was saying the same thing. I'm not a subscriber to that. First of all, Mr. Putin is a very sober man. He is not a gambler. And even though I myself have written a few last week that Russia has a first-try capability in the sense that it could so damage America's nuclear potential that it would win on the first round, on reconsideration, I think that is highly improbable for a course of action by Russia led by Mr. Putin.

What is much more likely, and I think his answer yesterday is a way hinting at the kind of response we can expect from Mr. Putin, although I don't agree that the first response will be to provide weapons to people in the Middle East. I think the first response would be to destroy Kiev. I mean, to knock out, to decapitate the government in Kiev and possibly, after giving a subvention warning, a day or two to get the civilians out, leveling the city. I think that that is likely because there'll be no blowback. Nobody in Western Europe, not to mention the states, will shed a tear if Kiev disappears. If that doesn't solve the problem, and if there's still attacks coming from Ukrainian territory, supposedly by Ukrainian forces,

the next step, and I'm not pulling this out of the air, it is a point that's been made on Russian talk shows, what they would like to see happen. They will demolish the Polish airport and logistical infrastructure that has been enabling the Ukrainians by serving as a go-between between U.S. deliveries and West European deliveries and further shipments into the Ukraine across the border. Again, looking at the situation, yes, you can say that would trigger Article 5. Well, to my knowledge, Article 5 does not require that the other countries respond. It just provides a framework for their responding. And I think it's hardly possible that anyone in Western Europe will give a damn if Poland is struck by Russian

forces. And if that doesn't work, then the third in a sequence of responses would be to hit military bases and manufacturing facilities in Germany, England, and France. You'll note my excluding the possibility of a direct Russian attack on the continental United States with nuclear weapons. That is off script. Why? Because it's suicidal. Even if the Russians have this massive, very advanced strategic triad, there's still American weapons that come from nuclear-powered submarines with appropriate cruise missiles, they would get through, and there would be massive losses of life in Russia. He is not a gambler. So I think this is the scenario, or a scenario, that is more probable. That is a very sober analysis.

It's an endearing analysis because it gives us some cause for hope. Do you think that the American troops in Poland at this facility where our equipment lands and where it's repaired and where it's assembled and from which it is dispatched to Ukraine are there as a tripwire so that the Biden administration, you know governments do this, it's horrific, but they do it, intentionally put American troops in harm's way and can claim, ah, they fired the first shot, they killed our Americans, now we have to go in full guns blazing. I've ordered this, this, and this to Eastern Europe, and they'll be

there in 48 hours? Well, I've said why the Russians are not going to go straight to nuclear. And now I'd like to say what the United States won't. If the United States, under Trump, did not nuke North Korea when they had a few nuclear devices. And if the United States has not facilitated an Israeli attack, a nuclear attack on Iran, that is to say, if the United States has stood back cautiously, prudently, and I should say sanely, and not opened nuclear war against countries that had almost negligible nuclear weapons and negligible delivery means to the continental United States, why would the United States do something so utterly risky as fire missiles at Russia. It wouldn't do it.

I think these are hypotheticals that are very good. Paul Jay But is the United States engaged in the moral equivalent of firing missiles? Hear me out for a second. Scott Ritter and Colonel McGregor informed that the, you probably know this, the nature of the missiles that we have given to Ukraine require signals from a drone or a satellite. Those signals can only be accessed using codes. The codes are protected by top secret information. Only an American with a top secret security clearance can access them, whether the American's in Idaho in the U.S. or whether the American is on the ground in Ukraine. The sine qua non of the advance of the missile into Russian

territory is not only American construction and know-how, but a deliberate decision by Americans to do this. It does that make the Americans who are doing it fair game for being responded to militarily by the Russians? Oh, yes, and they will be. But that is not the same thing as the Russians ordering a launch of their strategic nuclear weapons against the United States. Right. Right. Do you see Joe Biden sending troops to the United States after Russia has killed American troops involved

in this scenario that I've just described? Well, some kind of face-saving gesture is in the cards, yes. But to do anything that will trigger a Russian nuclear response, I don't believe so. I don't believe even if Mr. Biden is 81, there are people around him who are 40 years younger and they would like to have a life. So I don't believe that the administration will do anything. And more important, not the administration, however, giddy and foolish Sullivan and Kirby and the others around the president are. There is the Pentagon. And the Pentagon has a few people of some authority who know the Constitution and know where their responsibilities lie, to serve a man or to serve the country. And I think back, this is not a hypothetical suggestion,

I think back of General Milley, whose insubordination was never punished. Right, but whose insubordination may have saved us. Exactly the point. Right, right. I want to play another clip for you, which is a little bit more bellicose, and it's not from an insignificant person.

I'm not even going to tell you who it is, but you'll know in a flash. Chris, cut number one. We have shown that we will not put up with this and that we will not allow Ukraine to be used as a direct threat to our security, as an instrument for the destruction of everything Russian on historical Russian lands. They did this for more than two decades, or even 30 years, immediately after the disappearance of the Soviet Union. Their goal was to destroy everything Russian, from the language to the government in this territory, which they wanted to take for themselves. And they were counting on it. But

as always happens, if they wake up the Russian bear, then our people have united like never before. These are not empty words. We saw this during the Russian presidential elections. The Nazi regime continues to use Western weapons to attack civilian targets, towns, and cities. I assure you that they will not be able to cross this line unnoticed. Not be able to cross this line unnoticed. Don't awaken the Russian bear. Has the West awakened the Russian bear? Oh, definitely. There is a lot of minds have changed in Russia. People who are sympathetic, who traveled in Western Europe or to the States, and who now understand that this close association,

this high appreciation they had for the United States and the West is misplaced, and that the countries that they like to be associated with are now their enemies. I think this has traveled. Mr. Lavrov, who we've just shown, the foreign minister of Russia, he's changed. He was never singing a song like this before. And I'd just like to put this into context.

We all have the highest respect for Sergei Lavrov as the world's most seasoned diplomat, longest serving major power foreign minister, and a man with vast experience and capabilities. Nonetheless, Mr. Lavrov is not an independent force. He has always served the prime minister and, sorry, the President of Russia. And when he was working for Mr. Medvedev, because he stayed on after, in this interim period between Putin's service as President, when he was working for Medvedev, he was not the same man that you just heard on the screen.

He was very concerned to appeal to the West and to find common language with the West. The man who has not changed his song is his direct deputy, Mr. Ryabkov. Mr. Ryabkov is a hard man in the ministry. He's the one who presented the demands that NATO withdraw to the 1994 boundaries in December 2021. And Mr. Ryabkov has come forward also making statements similar to what you just showed for Lavrov. But he is not pliable. He is a hard line, very intelligent, very sophisticated, but very clear about Russia's sovereignty. And that if you go through, I have friends, I have acquaintances from who were always on the liberal side with a capital capital L, and they have changed their tune. I'm speaking now of friends in St. Petersburg who we've known for decades.

So this is not a superficial froth. It is a genuine change in sentiment in Russian society. Professor, does the West, let me refine the question, does the American State Department, does the Biden administration understand what you just articulated? Regrettably, no, because the critical issue is, well, people have spoken about empathy and the need for empathy for Russia. I won't speak about sympathy for Russia because that really takes you out of court. But just listening to them puts you in the status of being a Putin stooge.

And that is terribly self-limiting and self-destructive for American foreign policy. If you don't listen to the enemy, then you really are flying blind. And that is unfortunately what is going on much of the time in Washington. Your academic colleague, Professor Jeff Sachs of Columbia, has been pounding away for months at the fact that Foreign Minister Lavrov and Secretary of State Blinken haven't even spoken in the past year. And this is Blinken's initiative that they haven't spoken. How crazy is that? Shouldn't they be talking on almost a daily basis when we are virtually eyeball to eyeball in Ukraine? Well, I agree completely with Jeffrey Sachs' recommendations.

He's a man with long, in-depth experience going back to the mid-1990s when he tried to play a very positive role in the transition to market economy in Russia, but was frustrated by a blind American administration. So he has seen blindness going back 30 years, not just in the last two weeks. And what he has said, what he's described, I support completely. Professor Doctorow, it's a pleasure, my dear friend. I hope you'll come back on a weekly basis. And if so, we'll look forward to seeing you next week. My pleasure.

Thank you. Coming up the rest of today, our interesting schedule is at 11 o'clock Eastern, 11 a.m. Eastern, Professor Mearsheimer at 2 o'clock Eastern, a still hot and angry but brilliant and articulate Max Blumenthal. And at 4 o'clock Eastern, a calmer but brilliant and articulate and ready to go for the jugular of The Washington Post, Aaron Matei. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.