Judging Freedom - Prof. Gilbert Doctorow: The Pressure on President Putin

Episode Date: June 5, 2025

Prof. Gilbert Doctorow: The Pressure on President PutinSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

you Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, June 5th, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow will be here with us in just a moment. What kind of pressure is there on President Putin to respond to the Western drone attacks decisively? Is it coming from the ordinary folks, from the elites, or from his inner circle? But first this. While the markets are giving us whiplash, have you seen the price of gold? It's soaring! In the past 12 months, gold has risen to more than $3,000 an ounce.

I'm so glad I bought my gold, it's not too late for you to buy yours. The same experts that predicted gold at $3,200 an ounce now predict gold at $4,500 or more in the next year. What's driving the price higher? Paper currencies. All around the world, they are falling in value. Big money is in panic, as falling currencies shrink the value of their paper wealth.

That's why big banks and billionaires are buying gold in record amounts. As long as paper money keeps falling, they'll keep buying and gold will keep rising. So do what I did. Call my friends at Lear Capital. You'll have a great conversation and they'll send you very helpful information. Learn how you can store gold in your IRA tax and penalty free or have it sent directly to your doorstep. There's zero pressure to buy and you have a 100%

risk free purchase guarantee. It's time to see if gold is right for you. Call 800-511-4620. 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgeknap.com and tell them your friend, the judge sent you. Professor Dr. Ogadadi, my friend, and thank you for joining us. Thank you for accommodating my schedule. According to the readout of the Russian Foreign Ministry or put out by the Russian Foreign Ministry

of the telephone call between President Putin and President Trump. President Trump told President Putin the United States had no knowledge of the drone attack. So let's analyze the significance of whether this is credible. It clearly isn't. How the Russians react when the President of the United States says something like this and does Donald Trump have control over his own Intel apparatus? What is your initial response to such a statement made by Trump to Putin? Well, I'd like to call attention to the time it took him to say that.

Yes. Not to read it over the phone, but why it took him two days to come forward and make a statement. And this was a question that was put to me by an Indian television station yesterday. And I asked, I tossed back, why did it take Putin so long to say anything about it also? I think both sides were checking to see who was involved in this attack. And I doubt that Trump would have dared to call Putin until he was personally satisfied that there was no way of pinning this on the United States during his time in office, which is critical.

That the United States was involved previously as 100% certain that this goes back 18 months when Joe Biden was still in the saddle, so to speak, or anyway, his facilitators, his so-called subordinates, Jake Sullivan and Tony Blinken, were surely in cahoots with the Brits and with Kiev about staging this attack. But they weren't in office when it took place. And I think Trump wanted to be certain that no one had subverted his intentions.

There had been no rogue attack, no rogue participation in the people under him in this previously planned attack. Because it would be deadly to take this up with Putin if Putin had the goods on him and would point a finger. Well, he was satisfied, obviously, that the United States was not involved in the implementation of a program which it had helped to hatch 18 months ago. As for Mr. Putin, clearly he also was in no rush to talk about this until he understood who were the likely responsible people for it happening.

But Trump did call, and I think that is very important to weigh in on the discussions that the airwaves are filled with on various programs, including your own. Is there rogue activity in the United States? Is the government really following Mr. Trump's dictates? Is there still a deep state? My personal position is there isn't a deep state. Not as it was before. JAY... Say again, because I didn't hear you. Is or is not?

LASCARIS... Is not. There isn't a deep state after Mr. Trump threw 40,000 people out on the street. Closing of U.S. aid, I think, was a stake through the heart of the Dracula. And the State Department is being purged now about which the New York Times and the Financial Times are busy bleating to their audience. Does the Kremlin believe that American intel and security services operate outside of legal controls? Do they believe that Trump truly didn't know what the CIA under Biden had concocted

and that the CIA had washed its hands of it under Gabbard and Ratcliffe? I think they assumed that he knew that such a plan existed, which would be a safe guess. Although not necessarily the case. If it was no longer operative, if the people who had been in charge of it were out now out on the street, then why bother to inform him about something that no longer was operative? So it is conceivable that he didn't know. As to the Kremlin, I think their concern precisely to identify were his people still involved in this affair. Nonetheless, the time this occurred on his watch and the issues that are far-reaching and that almost nobody's addressing remain. The issue I want to highlight is what this says about the prospects for

any renewal of any arms limitations. Yes, that's a profound statement. And I would argue, Professor, that it is bigger than that. I mean, this may disrupt not only arms negotiation, but the reset, the commercial reset that Trump said he wanted to do. Before we go a little further, here's President Putin yesterday in his most definitive response, Chris Cutt, number one.

It was a deliberate strike and it only confirms our suspicions that the illegitimate regime in Kiev that came to power through a coup is now being reborn as a terrorist organization and its sponsors become supporters of terrorism. At the same time, they're asking for a ceasefire. They're asking for top-level meetings. But how can we organize such meetings? Something like this is happening. What is there to talk about?

How can we negotiate with those who are resorting to terrorism? And why should we reward them with a cessation in hostilities, allowing them to receive additional weapons to continue their mobilization and to prepare for more terrorist attacks like those in the Brownskins and Kursk regions? How do you read that? Well, you just… the last two words are the key to understanding what he was saying. If you didn't hear those, you would think he was talking about the attack on the air base.

This has been big discussion in the media, on YouTube in the last couple of days, about was the attack on those air bases a terror attack or was it a legitimate military attack? I'm in the group that says it was a legitimate military attack and Mr. Putin deliberately did not speak about that when he went to the nation. He spoke only about the attacks in Kursk and Bryansk which are terrorist attacks. Well, the attack on the bridge and the train

were terrorist attack. I agree with you. An attack on military bridge and the train were terrorist attack. I agree with you. An attack on military aircraft deliberately left out in the open in order to comply with assault treaty known to Western intel and private to Ukrainian intel is a valid legitimate lawful military target. It is a way to kill all treaties or future treaties on weapons limitations. But it is. Now I want to call attention to something that nobody is talking about, but it has to

do with exactly the telephone call that Trump made and as he explained to the public. He said that he understood that Mr. Putin has to respond to this attack. So he's expecting a retaliation. That was a statement which probably did not win too many friends in the States. Let me just copy you and read what we have on the screen, which is the guts of what you're talking about. So this is Trump's statement on truth social, referring to his conversation with President Putin, quote, it was a good conversation, but not a conversation that would lead to immediate peace. President Putin did say and very strongly that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the

airfields, close quote. That's yesterday. Please continue, Professor Doctorow. That's the first extremely important part of what Trump said. The second part, which I think is equally important, I don't hear a word about. Trump said that he discussed with Putin the negotiations for limiting uranium enrichment in Iran, the negotiations that are ongoing. It's the first time I've heard Trump talk about that. And it is highly important. Why?

This is a dog whistle to Mr. Trump's allies in the Zionist group on both parties in Capitol Hill. He's saying, look, you don't like very much my being nice to Mr. Putin and the Russians, but the Russians are with us, we're aligned completely on keeping the Iranians away from nuclear weapons. And so-

Allowing them, but allowing them a sufficient level of enrichment for domestic civilian purposes? Well, with or without that qualification, the point is that Witkow, when he made his first trip to deal with the negotiators from Iran, I think it was Oman, I can't quite recall which of the Arab states he was in. Nonetheless, on his way there,

he stopped off unexpectedly and without prior agreement in St. Petersburg. He stopped off for maybe four to six hours on his way to the Middle East. And why did he do that? It wasn't to update the talks on peace negotiations in Ukraine. It was to discuss precisely how to handle the Iranians during

the talks he was about to have. But we didn't hear about that, and Mr. Trump said nothing about it. The first time that he's acknowledging that Russia can be useful, is useful, to the United States in his dealings with Iran was yesterday. And it was precisely to strengthen his hand with the pro-Zionist members of Congress while he's walking through a minefield in dealing with Mr. Putin and dealing with his tax bill and the rest of it.

Right, right, let's get back to the attacks of President Putin's like the response. What is the reaction as you're able to put your finger on the pulse of Russian elites? What is the reaction of Russians in the streets? What is the reaction if there is any public knowledge of this of his inner circle? Well, I'll start with the last, well, the next to last. The, his inner circle will support him in all events. They will smile through gridded teeth as they did the evening that he, before the launch of the

special military operation. He had all of his top people there to sign on for responsibility for what he's about to do. They weren't happy about it. I think the situation today is that they also are probably going to smile through gritted teeth. That is his inner circle. But what about the broad public?

The table talk across Russia as people break bread, I think, will be highly critical to Putin. I don't think the Russians are the least bit happy with these whole series of attacks. It's more than just the headline attack on the air bases. There's a general who was blown up in Moscow, as I understand, yesterday. There was an attack on some bridge in Moscow. There was, of course, the attempt to blow up with several thousand pounds of explosives to blow up the Kerch Bridge in the last few

days and, of course, those murderous attacks on civilian trains in Bransk and Kursk. So the Russians have had a lot to get to discuss over the table in their kitchen talk, and I don't suppose that any of it was favorable to Mr. Putin and his ghostly approach. What do you expect President Putin, pardon me, what do you expect President Putin to do? Well he won't satisfy the hardliners, that's 100 sure. When there he will satisfy the general grumbling that surely is going on, as I say, at breakfast and dinner tables across Russia, that remains to be seen. I don't imagine that he's going to depart from his slowly, slowly approach, which will

leave a lot of the broad public questioning and unhappy. But we'll see. As I've mentioned elsewhere, this week, particularly, all the Russian ambassadors from around the world, as far as I understand, have been called back to Russia for consultations or to give them a briefing on what to expect next. Well, that's pretty dramatic, isn't it?

I can't be sure. There are annual meetings between Mr. Lavrov and his worldwide ambassadors, at which Mr. Putin generally comes. But I'm not sure the timing is peculiar. It's inconvenient for the ambassadors, because they were called on very short notice, which suggests that this meeting is indeed linked to what happened last weekend. And it's coming before the days when Russia celebrates its equivalent of 4th of July, which is the 9th of June. And these ambassadors are supposed to be at their posts officiating

at the celebrations of Russia's National Day. So it's inconvenient for them in every way to have been called to Moscow right now. So it's inconvenient for them in every way to have been called to Moscow right now. I want to get back and press you on who is responsible for this. Does the Kremlin believe, not you, do you think the Kremlin believes that the American deep state operates outside the lawful controls of authority? I don't think they believe that, but I can't say with my hand to my heart that's 100% certain. I think they give Trump the benefit of the doubt. They know that he's struggling with a lot of resistance and they're very sympathetic to that cause because it concerns them directly. If he fails then their chances for accommodation with the states

go down with him. But I think they believe that he has the upper hand present. But that is only a guess. Yeah, I am not a fan and I don't think you are of General Kellogg. He's an old-fashioned and I don't think you are, of General Kellogg. He's an old fashioned neocon that wants this war to keep going. But even he warned of the dangers of what happened the other day. And who knows why he said it? I'll play the clip in a minute.

Maybe to wash his hands of his colleagues involvement, maybe because he honestly believes it. But here he is on Fox News on June 3rd, warning about an unacceptable level of risk. Chris Cutt, number six. Each age has its own style of warfare, and we're seeing now drone warfare. And we're going to have to adapt to that and look at that. And it's not so much the damage done on the bombers, which was what you call the bearer with the, in the NATO terms, we call them bear and blackjack,

because the 22s, the Tupolov 22s, those are the swept wing ones, and they're all nuclear capable. But anytime you attack the Triad, it's not so much the damage you do on the Triad itself, like the delivery vehicles, the bombers, but it's the psychological impact you have. And it shows that-

That was a huge embarrassment to Putin. Well, and I think what it showed, it showed that Ukraine is not lying down on this. Ukraine is basically, we can play this game too. And they can raise the risk level to levels that are basically, to me, they've got to be unacceptable. I think, as you pointed out in this statement from President Putin, the last two words are the most important.

I would argue that the last word he used, unacceptable, referring to the level of risk induced by this, is the most important of what he said. Were you surprised to hear him say that? I think he wants to stay in government a bit longer. I think he wants to stay in government a bit longer. Spoken like a person who truly understands American politics. I mean, I don't know why he's there unless Trump just likes to have a warmonger, a Lindsey Graham type whispering in his ear. The Russians don't pay him much mind. What do the Russians think of Wittkopf?

A nice guy, a smart guy, a good negotiator, but a babe in the woods compared to the Russian negotiators? I don't think they look at him in that perspective. Their major concern is how well he is received by Mr. Trump and to what extent he is the voice and to the brains of Mr. Trump in the affairs that are of interest to the Russians. As to Kellogg, it is dismissive entirely.

But Ritkov, I think they respect him. Of course they know that he's a realtor and he's not a professional diplomat. But in so far as he is the confidant of Donald Trump, they necessarily take him seriously. Well, we are talking, Professor Doctorow, the chat room, the people that comment, which often for you numbers into the thousands,

are responding to a poll that Chris posted, and we'll give you the results in a few minutes. You'll find this question intriguing. Did Trump know in advance of the Ukrainian drone strike? This is the opinion of those who regularly watch this show and who particularly watch it when you are the guest. If the United States and Great Britain and other NATO forces, probably the Germans, were behind this, then the United States, Great Britain and Germany are legitimate

military targets for the Russians. Is that not so? Well, they've been, with the exception of the Germans, the others have been legitimate targets insofar as almost a year ago, Vladimir Putin identified the United States as a co-belligerent. They didn't press the point. They did not declare war, which was possible considering what Putin just said, that none of the attacks with the missiles supplied

by the United States or supplied by France and England could have struck any targets without all the programming and satellite intelligence having been provided by the United States and its close allies. So the possibility of considering the United States at war with Russia has existed for most of the year. Did you just acknowledge that these drones could not have been effectively employed without American satellite know-how?

No, no. I was not talking about drones. I was talking precisely about guided missiles, cruise missiles, the long-range attack weapons that the United States, France, and Britain have supplied to Ukraine. They are highly sophisticated and they require sophisticated and they require all that you have mentioned. The drones are a different story. Look, the targeting used for the missiles has to be up to the minute. Things move. The air bases don't move.

Planes that are visible for purposes of the new SALT agreement, they are stable, they're in place. Therefore, I don't think the Ukrainians would have needed real-time satellite information for targeting these planes using their drones. Moreover, the drones themselves are guided by reconnaissance drones. Coming back to this whole question of the value of highly sophisticated satellite reconnaissance,

the Russians are doing without it. The Russians campaign in the Donbas is almost all done by reconnaissance drones. They work in parallel with the kamikaze drones. Right, let me get them, and we have a result on the poll, which I'll reveal in a few moments, but let me get back to who knew what when. If John Ratcliffe, the director of CIA, and if Tulsi Gabbard, his boss,

the director of national intelligence, did not know that this was happening. Wouldn't that be gross incompetence on their part? No, not know that it was happening when it happened. I don't mean when it happened, but that it was going to happen. Not, well, not necessarily. The people who knew that were probably on the street when these two and these people came into office. You mean they were by then ex-CIA officials who no longer chose to or were no longer permitted to work in the Trump administration? Precisely that.

Precisely that. Okay. All right. So the continuity is not clear. I don't know where this is going to go. It's almost inconceivable to me that American Intel didn't know. How badly did Russian Intel drop the ball and will heads roll there? How could Russian Intel not have known this was coming? The trucks were moved into Russia. The drones were dismantled in Russia. The collapsible roofs on the trucks occurred in Russia. The drones were fired from Russia. I agree completely with your emphasis on this issue as being a sign of weakness within the Russian intelligence. But let's go back to the very start of this war.

The Russians assumed that the war, that launching the special military operation, it would be over in a week. The Americans, the Brits, everyone else who was feeding the press after the 23rd, 24th of February, were saying it would take two or three days. The Russians are after all amassed at the Belarus-Ukrainian border, what is it, 16 miles to Kiev, it'll be over fast. They assumed that the Ukrainian army would act out of national interests and would not follow the orders of a neo-Nazi regime that was imposed on the country and that held the

government by the throat. They thought the army would behave patriotically and not subject to rule by Zelensky. Were they right? They were dead wrong. And this is the most peculiar thing to understand given that everyone speaks about Mr. Putin as having been a KGB operative, having been a mastered intelligence.

What the hell happened to Russian military intelligence? It had serious failures. I guess heads will roll. Here's the result of the poll. No surprise. So about just under a thousand people responded. Did Trump know in advance of the Ukraine drone strike? Yes, 77 percent.

No, 22 percent. I don't know if that's a fair, I mean, our audience is international, as you know, so I don't, I haven't seen any polls here. I haven't seen any political reaction here. But I just, as you can tell, I am skeptical about senior national security people around Trump being totally ignorant of it. They may have kept him ignorant of it, so we could about senior national security people around Trump being totally ignorant of it. They may have kept him ignorant of it so he could legitimately say to Putin that he didn't know, but it's hard for me to believe that no one

in the American government knew that something of this magnitude was about to take place. Well, they wouldn't have known that it would succeed. They wouldn't have known that the Russians had been so lax in security. There was reason to known that it would succeed. They wouldn't have known that the Russians had been so lax in security. There's there was reason to believe that it could fail. And at least one of these these bases that was attacked, it did fail. So it I don't see why they would rush to tell Mr.

Trump about Operation Spiderweb when its date for implementation was not known, when its chances of success were not known, and when it was assumed that America no longer had a hand in it. Well, do you agree with Colonel McGregor, who called this a PR stunt, Operation Spiderweb? Operation Spiderweb? The whole Ukrainian government for three years has been one PR operation to the great detriment of their loyal military officers and soldiers. Everything that Zadansky has done has sacrificed men for the sake of PR so that he could squeeze more money out of the western supporters. So if this was a PR event, it's purely continuation of the whole nature of the operation within Kiev. Thank you, Professor Doctor. A great interview. Very informative. I so appreciate your

analysis, whether you're consistent, whether other guests or not. It's a pleasure to be able to chat with you. Thank you for your time. We look forward to seeing you next week. Well, very kind of you. Bye bye. Bye bye. We have a busy day coming up at 11 o'clock this morning. He's been texting us since, well, for a couple of hours now. Scott Ritter at two this afternoon, Max Blumenthal at three this afternoon. Professor John Mearsheimer at four this afternoon,

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson at 4.30 this afternoon. I don't know where he is on the planet, but he's coming to us. Pepe Escobar. Justin Paul Townell for Judging Freedom. MUSIC