Judging Freedom - Prof. Gilbert Doctorow: What the Kremlin Thinks.

Episode Date: June 11, 2025

Prof. Gilbert Doctorow: What the Kremlin Thinks.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, June 11th, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow will be here with us in just a moment. I just what is the Kremlin thinking and what is the Kremlin planning to do next? 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 learjudgenap.com and tell them your friend the judge sent you.

Professor Doctorow, welcome here. My dear friend, thank you for accommodating my schedule and thank you for all of the off air communications that we have informing me of your very thoughtful observations. Are you satisfied that the Kremlin is satisfied that the drone attack two weekends ago was certainly perpetrated with the help of the British and probably perpetrated with the help of the United States. I Think that there's an article in today's Financial Times which the viewers of this

of this broadcast should follow up. I'm not a fan of the Financial Times regarding their Russian coverage because they're quite biased, but occasionally they come up with something that is important that cannot be ignored. Today was the day. They had one of the reporters interviewed the people responsible for developing the drones that were used in the attack on these four Russian air bases housing their strategic triad bombers. And it comes out from that that the Ukrainians were entirely capable of carrying out this act on their own. Of course, to go back 18 months, of course, 18 months ago, no doubt, the United States and Britain helped them to decide where to attack,

what to attack, and maybe even the mechanics of the attack, not to be an attack from long distances, but from short distances. I have little doubt the British British with their extensive espionage network across Russia would have been facilitators in helping the Ukrainians to decide how and where they would hide their drones for eventual use, kind of sleeper drones we can call them. But as it regards the attack itself, I don't think that the Brits or the Americans had anything to do with it because the Ukrainians were capable. This is an important fact which is overlooked unfortunately by virtually the whole of independent media.

We all assume that the Ukrainians are helpless fools, that they just throw their lives away by combating the Russians without their own means of producing weapons and they're entirely dependent on what they get from outside, often which is misaligned with their needs. Now, the point that came out of this article today is that the Ukrainians are surely ahead of the United States and ahead of Great Britain in drone warfare. And why shouldn't they be? They're doing the battle on the battlefield, not the Americans or the Brits. And they are up against an opponent who had to catch up

in drone warfare, but has done, and the Russians, and I'd say they are peers now. They both are the world's leading fighters of drone warfare. Now, why do I say that about the Russians? Because I watch Russian television, which some people disparage, but if you watch it properly, you'll get something interesting and useful. The useful point is that the targeting of all Russian activity now on the front is not satellite reconnaissance. It is reconnaissance drones. That gives them instantaneous location of targets in... Yes, that's the article. Instantaneous location of targets, even faster than you get from satellites because they're

farther out and it takes longer for real-time information to arrive. The Russians are doing it, so why should the Ukrainians do it? They're not stupid. They're very good at computer games. Is the media narrative, and this is not mainstream, I mean this comes to me from guests on this show who are former intelligence officers themselves, that Ukrainian intel is wedded at the hip and subservient to MI6 and CIA. Is that necessarily proving to be accurate 100% of the time? It's accurate some of the time, not all of the time. It depends on what weapons we're talking about. And when you talk about drones, as I say, the Ukrainians and the Russians are way ahead of

everybody else. So what kind of help do the Ukrainians need from Britain? None. Once the drones were put in place, and this is months, if not years ago. Well, do they have the Intel or the satellite capability of knowing where the Russian targets are without British or American assistance? You don't need satellite becomes. That's the whole point. The war is now done by drones which have artificial intelligence and they are doing their own targeting. That's what this article is all about. And I say just it is believable. I understand that this supports the overall editorial position of Financial Times, which is not the position of you or me or nearly all of our viewers. That's not the point. It doesn't make their information less accurate. And it's accurate.

make their information less accurate. And as you know, I devour the Financial Times every day, even though many times I grit my teeth at their editorial policies. Watch a Foreign Minister Lavrov on Monday on this very issue. So, Chris, cut number eight. it is obvious that the Ukrainian side is doing everything possible but it would be absolutely helpless without the support I was tempted to say anglo-saxons but probably without saxons just without the support of the british although you never know probably by inertia Some US special forces would be involved in that But the British are actually are behind all those things. I'm 100% sure Agree or disagree or is this misleading when he says the British are behind it. He didn't say they paid for it or they Crafted it but they're behind it It's misleading intentionally,

which is another way of saying he's lying. There's obviously no reason to believe that Mr. Lavrov is an angel. He isn't, why should he? Angels do not serve at top levels of government for 20 years. They got thrown away long before that. So of course he's saying

what the current Kremlin policy is. My insistence is that we as observers and as analysts should keep our sense of detachment from all sides, including the Russian side. Is the Kremlin finding credible or not credible finding credible or not credible President Trump's denials of US knowledge and awareness, because we do have this ambiguous statement from Secretary Hegseth, which I'll play for you in a minute, but what does the Kremlin think of Trump's denials to President Putin on the phone? If we follow up the logic of the article we were just discussing, I think President Putin was 100% confident that Trump knew nothing about this. He knew nothing about it because there's nothing to know.

The actual implementation or execution of this attack on the basis was 100 percent Ukrainian when it took place. I'm not speaking about the planning or the assistance in putting these drones where they were, but that goes back months, if not years. In the present tense, the Ukrainians did it themselves. Therefore, I'd say that Putin had to know the capabilities of those drones. And therefore he would know that Trump wasn't informed because the US

intel didn't know exactly when this would happen. Here's Secretary Hague says, so it's long Chris will stop it after he says following the drones in real time. He both, he says both. US noon, he's under oath before the Senator Armed Services Committee. And he says both. We didn't know anything about it. Oh, and by the way, we follow the drones in real time. You tell me what you think this means. Cut number 10.

Are we seeing the ushering in of a new era of warfare? The use of drones from afar. After all, these drones were smuggled into Russia, hidden for a great span of time, and then activated from 2,500 miles away. Are we prepared, both defensively and offensively. It was a daring and very effective operation that we were not aware of in advance and reflects significant advancements in drone warfare, which we are tracking in real time inside Ukraine. Ukraine. OK, we didn't know about this, but we tracked drone warfare in real time inside Ukraine. I don't know if you realized what he said with the second part, but I have to ask you about the first part. Is that credible that the US didn't know about this?

Let's parse what he said. Because you're smiling at him over. Let's be very careful about this. He didn't say that we follow this attack. He said we follow drone warfare, generic, right? I mean you can interpret as you wish. I interpret it as a generic statement. We are monitoring drone warfare because the United States is interested. They have to have capability in this too eventually. But he did not say that we saw this in real time. You satisfied that the United States

had not played any role in this, not withstanding what Foreign Minister Lavrov said, and then we'll jump to another aspect of this. Lavrov was, look, Lavrov is not an independent party. He has been the loyal servant of whoever is his boss. When he was working for Putin, in Putin's first terms in office, he was Putin's man and he was supporting completely

the foreign policy that Putin sketched for him. When Medvedev took over and was promoting a foreign policy, I wouldn't say 180 degrees opposite, but let's say 90 degrees at variance with what Vladimir Putin was doing, Lavrov became a loyal servant of that policy. He is today a loyal servant of the latest Russian explanation of their policies,

which is what you were just saying. It's not... Why would the Kremlin want to promote the false idea that someone was involved in this if they weren't? Are they looking for an excuse to attack another country and widen the war? I don't think so. Well, the country involved was specifically named. They want to attack the United Kingdom. And let's face it, the Brits have been behind most every monstrous thing

that's been, that has gone on in Russia, whether it's Navalny killing or it's the Bucza massacre, which, oh, which these are all false flag catastrophes that they put at the door of Russia. Who is behind this? MI6. No question about it. They have run way ahead of the Americans in this monstrous activity. The Russians know it perfectly.

If they were to sink, let's just ask this question. If the Russians were tomorrow to sink two British nuclear submarines, what would come out of that? Nothing. The Brits can't do a damn thing without American permission. And Washington is not going to let them go to war to see the United States cities hit the next day by Russian ICP. If Donald Trump is telling the truth and if Pete Hegseth is telling the truth,

who's running American foreign policy? Are it rogue CIA agents or was the CIA's hands clean of all this? Look, this is a very important question you're asking and I've been in the middle of a debate over this and even comments on my appearance last week raised this question. Oh, Dr. says that the deep state is dead. Ha ha ha. I'm sorry that my words have been misinterpreted intentionally. I was like, man, there's always a deep state. The question is what kind of deep state?

A deep state by definition is bureaucratic continuity. The officials have 20, 30 year careers and they see administrations come and go. That is normal and it should give some stability and moderation to policy. So nothing wrong with that. The question is, have they been purged to introduce a single policy or approach to policy?

Under Dick Cheney, they were. American State Department and the agencies were purged. People who knew anything about Russia, Eastern Europe, were thrown on the street. A lot of the career analysts were thrown on the street. And a large part of American intelligence was outsourced to commercial operations using open sources.

Now, all right, then that created a new deep state which was deeply hostile to what you believe, what I believe, and I think most of the viewers believe. Mr. Trump in his first days in office has had another purge. And the deep state, when he threw threw out on a hobby was 40,000 employees of USAID or more or less on the street Was going at the jugular vein of the neocon control of the federal government. So when we speak about rogue CIA I don't believe for a minute. I think those people have been I've gotten the fear of God If I think those people have been, I've gotten the fear of God in them. If Trump stops all USA to Ukraine, can Ukraine continue to maintain the war

using its superiority and drawn warfare? Unclear. But the notion, there have been apocalyptic statements by my peers in the last week or two, how Ukraine is going down the drain, how it's going to be overrun, how the Russians will be at the Dnieper tomorrow. I don't agree with that. These are hyperventilating. Does that mean that Ukraine will go on for 20 years? I hope not. I also, again, keep our distance. Let's keep our distance from everybody. I keep my distance from Mr. Medinsky when he said,

well, Peter the Great fought for 21 years against Sweden. We can do the same. No, you cannot do the same. Mr. Putin will likely not be in office five years from now, let alone 20 years from now. Russia got into this war in February of 2022 for one specific reason. They had a window of opportunity where they knew that strategically they were five to 10 years ahead of the United States in weapons systems, particularly in hypersonic missiles, and not only. And they had made themselves sanctioned proof in the eight years while the

United States was building up Ukraine, the Russians were building up themselves. So on these two grounds, they were, I had a window opportunity that will not extend forever. The Europeans now are throwing hundreds of billions of dollars into defensive history. There will be results. What is the pressure, if any, from either his inner circle, elites, or the public perception of the war going on and on and on, on President Putin. Is that pressure to maintain the slow, methodical, patient, inexorably slow pace of the war or to just get it over with once and for all? We cannot say with any certainty. And let me be specific why.

Look, I follow, you know, as I've mentioned elsewhere, this particular program has a very large followership in Russia. They now have, Judging Freedom is now, a few hours after it goes on the internet, it is available in Russian the internet. It is available in Russian with a voiceover or synchronized lips, the whole thing. AI control, beautiful. And it gets a hundred thousand views. It gets as many views per program, per individual and per topic as you get in the English original. Now I look occasionally at these videos. I look occasionally at these videos. I look at the comments section.

And I can tell you, I don't like what I see. There is a very strong xenophobic current, anti-Western current. They are not kind to you. They're not kind to me. They're not kind to anybody in the West. Now, is that justified? Of course it is.

Is it nice to see? It certainly isn't. So these people are defending Mr. Putin, by the way. They're questioning you or me or anybody who suggests in any way that Russia does not support their president. So that is a strain that is certainly present and that Mr. Putin's advisors, no doubt, are watching.

At the same time. As you have written, Russia is not the brutal murderous dictatorship that it was in 1942. It's now a democracy in which people can express their opinion and Putin relies in large measure for everything he does on popular support as it should be. I agree. By the way, the latest proof that it's not what it was in 1942 were the pictures of the returning young men who were prisoners of war and were released in the exchanges that took place on Monday.

And they were interviewed and smiling faces. And the people like Krumadinsky and others who were interviewed were speaking about humane policies now. Let's remember what happened in 1942, 1945. Russian prisoners of war returning from Germany were incarcerated if they weren't shot. That was the dictatorship of the 1940s of Mr. Stalin. That is worlds apart from Russia today. Is Mr. Putin susceptible to the currents of popular thinking in Russia? Of course he is.

Last question or last subject matter, Professor Doctorow. The Ukrainian nuclear assets, who has them? Does Russia have them? Does the United States covet them? Are they still Ukrainian? Let's go back a few weeks. This was something subject to which I believe we discussed. And again, I got some real flak from readers of my essays on this subject. What right does Mr. Trump have to make claims on the Ukrainian nuclear reactors as a source of possible revenue to offset the shipments of arms to Ukraine during the Biden administration? Well, it sounded like really a peculiar thing. Where did he pull this out of, other than the fact that there will be money there, it's clear. All of the There will be money there, it's clear. All of the coal burning and gas and the oil burning,

traditional power generation has been knocked out by the Russians. And I didn't touch the nuclear plants. They've been shut down because of risk of war, but they can be started up instantly. And so this would be a likely source of important revenue, which Mr. Trump would like to tap into. But there's more to it than that, and it's not my say. It was the Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs

Vyapkov, who was quoted in Commerceant, which is one of the more responsible business-oriented daily newspapers and online newspapers in Russia, as saying, we'll have to talk to the Americans about this. He's speaking about the Zaporozhye nuclear plant, which is Europe's largest, and of course Ukraine's largest, with six reactors on site. We have to speak to the Americans about this

because you know, four out of the six reactors are now fueled by Westinghouse. And there are American technicians there who supervise the transition. So it's more complicated than it looks. Can't make this stuff up. Professor Doktora, thank you very much. Your analysis is always scintillating, even if you are iconic. I welcome it here.

I welcome your views. And of course, I welcome all of our Russian viewers. And thank you for reminding me that they are out there. I did have the opportunity to speak via the internet to a Russian gathering put together by our mutual friend Dmitry Simes and I'm happy that it was well received, particularly when I referred to Russia as Mother Russia. Professor Taktaro, thank you all the best. We'll look forward to seeing you next week.

Thank you. Okay. And coming up later today at 11 o'clock this morning, Professor, oh God, I don't remember who we have on. At 11 o'clock, Colonel Douglas McGregor. Bear with me a minute here. Sorry for that. At 11 o'clock, Colonel Douglas MacGregor. At 3 o'clock, Daniel McAdams, who's not new to the show, but who's going to talk about do we still have a constitution? And at 4 o'clock, what are the British up to with our former British diplomat, Ian Proud, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom? Music