Judging Freedom - Prof. Gilbert Doctorow: Why Trump Is In a Rush.

Episode Date: April 3, 2025

Prof. Gilbert Doctorow: Why Trump Is In a Rush.See 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, April 3rd, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us now. Professor Doctorow, always a pleasure. I want to talk to you essentially and eventually about President Trump in a rush and President Putin patient. But first I need to ask you some questions on another field of your expertise, which is the politics of Europe. How do you account for the recent bellicosity of leaders like Ursula von der Leyen, Manuel Macron, Frederick Mertz, and Keir Stormer? Real serious bellicosity, as I view it, they've invested so much in what they thought was a common program of the United States, based on defending Europe from the Russian bear, based on free trade, based on globalism and progressive social policy. But when they found themselves confronted by Donald Trump, they dug in.

And of course, for all of these persons, saving their own skin, saving their own power is their primary motive. They have invested in the war with Ukraine and they want to stick to it in the hope that the policy will be reversed in the United States because of opposition to Trump and to his seeming failure to produce results within this 100 days, seeming failure to produce results within this 100 days golden period of a new administration. Does Ms. Von der Leyen command an army? I know she'd love to, but is there such a thing as a European military? No, this is all her political strength, but she has no army. She has only her immediate following in what is essentially a cabinet

on the executive in European institutions. But she has no serious opposition and she can easily be lulled by the belief that she is omnipotent, therefore that others will move away, including the United States, if it is in a direct confrontation with her policies. So they are living in a bubble. Tell me if she knows what she's talking about here. Chris, this is a minute and a half long, but it's the core of her message. Chris, cut number 22. We had a very good meeting of the Coalition of the Willing.

The Coalition of the Willing has gotten bigger, stronger, and very determined. I have basically three key takeaways. The first was a broad discussion on how to step up in the support for Ukraine in the short term, financially and military-wise, the military needs that are there in Ukraine that have to be fulfilled, but also the financial needs. And here I can contribute that we will front load the EU part of the G7 loans for Ukraine. Second topic, keep up the pressure on Russia. It was very clear that the sanctions stay in place.

What we want is a just and lasting peace agreement. That is the goal. And the third key takeaway was on the long-term support for Ukraine and our own European defense posture. Here, of course, the Readiness 2030 plan is crucial. It provides up to 800 billion euros of defense investment possibilities for the member states. And this means, for example, joint procurement with Ukraine, joint procurement with Ukraine in the European Union, but also in the Ukrainian defence industry. It's strengthening the defence industrial base of Ukraine.

And of course, we need also a credible deterrence and defence posture in the European Union and thus we have to develop our own defense industrial base. Do you have 800 billion euros to invest? This is imaginary money. Look, she is putting lipstick on a pig. The reality is that the Coalition of the Willing produced no soldiers on the ground. And Starmer, who was the author and the promoter of that notion, had to backtrack and speak instead

about support for Ukraine from the air and from the sea, because on the grounds, there's no possibility. The money that she's talking about, well, she would like it. The money that they hoped that Kalos, her deputy for foreign affairs, was speaking about 40 billion euros in aid to Ukraine this year, and finally they voted, I think it was five. And even that is questioned by members who refuse to contribute one cent or one euro to that number.

We know about of course, about Fico and Slovakia and about Orban and Hungary, but other countries are now striking out on their own. Spain refused to make any commitment to support Ukraine. Other countries are questioning. And even those that are most fervent and you would think of are aligned with von der Leyen. And I myself fell into this trap less than a week ago when speaking about Donald Trump's seven hours meeting with Stubbe, the Prime Minister of Finland and I interpreted that as being Trump having decided it's easier to turn on Russia than

to turn on the EU. If he's going to apply pressure, I now have to revise that because Stubb two days ago said, well, we have to consider how are we going to deal with Russia when we have to return to normal relations. So I was wondering who influenced whom? Did Trump influence Stubb or did Stubb influence Trump? It's not obvious today. Let's go back to Vanderland. Where would she get 800 billion from? Does the EU tax other countries?

What is their source of wealth? This is notional money. It is just as Mr. Starmor's initiative a day ago to create a fund for procurement, a joint procurement of military equipment that would be that all member states could wish to take part in without putting up one euro in advance. This is the kind of money that she's talking about. It is it is bonds. It is obligations that they would jointly subscribe to and that is that is subject to a lot of disagreement within the EU. Countries like Holland don't want one more euro of common bonds or mutual obligations such as they did succumb to during the COVID fight. Has Viktor Orban weighed in on the nonsense from his European colleagues?

Oh, every day, yes. He certainly has not lost his vigor and his determination, and I think probably increasing confidence that whatever they say publicly, privately, many people agree with him. Nonetheless, having been around politics long enough, I know that what only counts is what people say publicly, because we're all angels privately, but sometimes we're wearing horns publicly. How do you, switching gears, professor, how do you account for Donald Trump's public impatience and Vladimir Putin's public and private, as we understand it, patience over the negotiations to bring an end to the special military operation in Ukraine.

Donald Trump has to deal with a specific problem. He's doing very well on domestic policy. His executive orders are being signed, carried out large, large, large measure. He has put in place tightening of security at the southern borders. He has put in place partially at least his deportation program. He has, as of yesterday, put in place his tariffs.

These are all going swimmingly. However, in the international front, he's doing very poorly. He has very little to show for the high personal engagement he's made on the international front. The ceasefire in Gaza, which gave him a gilded entry into office, is coming unraveled, partly with his assistance.

The Ukrainian ceasefire has very modest achievements, and even they are not being honored because the Ukrainians are not adhering to the moratorium on strikes on Russian energy infrastructure. So he is concerned that the 100 days period of grace will expire exactly on April 20th because that is the date that he has given for the Russians and the Ukrainians to sign a ceasefire or else. That is the date that he has given to the Iranians to submit to his will on their nuclear program, on their missile program, and on the support for the Axis resistance. That date of

April 20th is looming. And yes, nothing to show for it. So he's very impatient. The domestic strength that he has is unraveling a little bit. I mean, the Senate voted last night, a Republican controlled Senate, to eradicate his declaration of emergency as a basis for the tariffs. I don't know of any well-regarded economist who buys the trade imbalances in emergency. And of course, this is not enough votes to overcome override a veto. And of course, his buddies in the House won't even let this come to the floor where it would probably pass, but also not enough to override a veto. But I just comment on that, not to take us into American domestic politics, but just to underscore your, as I read your argument, that dark clouds might be coming.

Where do you see the Ukraine war going? I mean, our military experts on this show believe that Ukraine can't last another six months even if the Biden-Trump pipeline is kept over. Where do they get the six months from? General Zaluzhny himself has apparently said this to General Kovolny, the American commander of CENTCOM, when they met last in Germany. If the New York Times is right, they've been meeting in Germany all the time and the American generals in Germany have been helping target sites in Russia for Ukrainians to use American military equipment to fight Russia. Under the law, that's the United States at war with Russia. Another topic for another time. Question, how much longer can Ukraine

possibly last? Well, the decisive issue here is how much risk does Vladimir Putin want to take with the lives of his military because of the blowback from possible losses of personnel in any offenses that they may be planning, blowback domestically. On the Ukrainian side, it has to be said, and I'd just like to add here something that

you probably haven't heard that is coming out of our Russian talk shows, that the Ukrainians are in fact recruiting young Ukrainians. It's not as disastrous as it sounds, and the Russians on the ground are very concerned both about the relative strength and vigor of the new recruits now joining the Ukrainian army. Okay, how young and how well trained could they possibly be? Are they just being sent to the front line with a weapon in their hands and a uniform on their backs? Judging by what I've seen on Russian television, no, that these people have the people who are worrying the Russians have been trained Moreover, let's come back to the nature of the war. The war now is very much

Matter of technology and the Ukrainians are not stupid in that area. Not at all By technology, I mean the drone warfare. It's a very big issue not at all. By technology I mean drone warfare. It's a very big issue. Therefore, the Russians are very cautious about big advances, about big movements that subject their people to kamikaze drone strikes and so forth. This is not a simple war. It is really state-of-the-art war, and the Ukrainians are not slouches. They have a lot of bells very well trained people in precisely in this type of electronic and drone warfare in his recent talk aboard a Russian submarine President Putin in his usual articulate way

attacked the aesop group and Intimated and I believe you have written on this also, Professor, that they are just not a freestanding battalion. They are everywhere in the military and in the government. Question, does President Zelensky fear the Azov group? fear the Azov group? He should, but I think we're just passing over a critical point in Putin's statements to the staff, which looked like an offhand remarks in answer to a question from one of the crew men, but actually it was clearly a well-prepared,

well-orchestrated statement. He was explaining why he thinks the Trump initiative can fail and what can replace it. Donald Trump- Which initiative? Which initiative? The whole ceasefire slash long, durable peace. That initiative is in danger

because not just is Mr. Zelensky illegitimate, which is what has been called out and what Trump reacted to and said is untrue and Guterres reacted to and said is untrue, but what he was suggesting is that Zelensky has lost control of his army. And they are day by day violating the moratorium, which the selected team by Zelensky had slid onto, a moratorium on striking Russian infrastructure, energy infrastructure. It's going on every day. So what a point of Putin was that the army is infiltrated by this Aslov battalion, and they're not the only one, which are not bearers of Nazi ideology, and like it, they would like to fight to the last day. So these troops, these forces are out of control, they cease fire with Ukraine, signed with Zelensky's people, would be valueless not only because the man himself is illegitimate,

but he seems to have lost control. A line, I don't want to play the whole clip because it's a minute and a half long and I know you've seen it but a line from his address on the submarine says neo-nazi formations such as Azov among others are effectively beginning to run the country. Do you agree? Well run the country they've been doing since 2014. Run the army they have. And I think that is what is most troubling. From the very beginning, the Russians thought this would be over quickly when they approached Kiev. They assumed that they were rational people in control of the Ukrainian military who would overthrow the Zelensky regime in the sake of the nation. That didn't happen then and certainly doesn't look like it's

happening now. This is an intelligence failure by the Russians which unfortunately I think has persisted. Transitioning professor, if the United States and Israel attack Iran, what is your opinion of a likely response by Moscow and the likely response by Beijing? I think this is precisely what they've been discussing in Moscow with the visit of the Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs these last two days. Nominally, the reason for the visit was to prepare for Xi's trip to Moscow for the May 9th, 80th anniversary of the Yi Day celebrations.

But I think among the discussions, but certainly was subject for discussion directly with Putin, which took place a day ago, was how they're going to prevent an American attack on Iran and or react to one. I believe that what we've seen in the last two days, the Chinese military exercises staging an assault on Taiwan, staging a siege on Taiwan, I think these were not what they were explained to be. They were not a response to some remarks by the Prime Minister of Taiwan, to which Beijing took exception. No, they were a message to Washington, watch out, you touch Iran and you lose Taiwan the

next day. They are preparing for a siege of Taiwan. The Russians can do something also, but not as dramatic. The Secretary of Defense, Heg Seth, who in my view has very little credibility here in the United States, nevertheless he is the Secretary of Defense, was in Japan three days ago threatening China. I mean, isn't that absurd? How could the United States military possibly resist the Chinese military in the Chinese backyard?

At present time, they could not. Of course, the logic here is something that extends all across The logic here is something that extends all across the West. It is the same logic as Starmor saying, or Van der Leyen saying, we'll be ready for a war with Russia in five years. But wait a minute, we live today. And so it is with the statement that we're going to create a very strong base in Japan to attack China or to neutralize China.

That's very good. But we live today, and the Chinese are quite capable of doing great damage to the United States and its interests right here and now, for which the United States has no remedy. Do you see the bombing of the Houthis and statements from Trump, I'm going to use his barnyard phrase, when I was a kid this was considered improper language, but it's made its way into the lexicon of American speech these days, that he's pissed off at Putin statements like that and the killing of the civilians in In Yemen, do they advance the ball of negotiations between Russia and the United States? No, they don't The there are I would like to point out though that many of the more absurd statements coming out of Trump and his team Trump,

cash should not be taken in isolation, because I believe that there's a lot of linkage in his thinking. The tariffs are not just tariffs, the tariffs are a way of reducing income tax. The tariffs are introduced because the United States is pissed off with its allies and friends who have been ripping off the country for the last 50 years. Correct. I see no criticism of that basic logic in the press today, in the anti-tank. You'll hear that criticism later today on this program from Professor Sacks,

but I don't want to get into the economics now, but please continue. And then I'm going to ask you about if there is a connection in your view between the slaughter in Gaza and the peace negotiations between Russia. But go ahead, please. Well, to pick up the last one, it's easier. The slaughter in Gaza. There is, unfortunately, in big politics, there is a cynicism. The morality this goes straight back to Machiavelli. Private morality and state morality are different things. And however horrible various activities of the Team Trump have been in facilitating the slaughter in Gaza, in the muzzling of free speech in the United States.

These are steps taken for a bigger purpose. They have aligned Trump with the Israeli lobby, and I agree with Scott Ritter yesterday's statement on your show that who was commanding who? The United States is commanding Netanyahu, not the other way around. The objective of Trump's support for them is to get general support for his policies of changing the American approach to world politics from alliances to great powers. These are all interlinked and regrettably,

they're being analyzed separately and taken on their separate merits. But I have to apologize, I lost the line to your first question. That's all right. You were commenting, I think, on the absurdity of threatening China and analogizing it to the absurdity of what Mrs. Vanderlian was saying threatening Russia and you were aligning those two mentalities, if you will, as defects in Western thinking. How much longer do you think, I may have asked you this earlier, the Ukraine special military operation can last, did you comment on General Zaluzhny saying it doesn't go beyond June even if they keep giving us all these arms, or is that just a deception articulated

by Zaluzhny? Well, as I said, it can go on for considerably longer than June. But it is unpredictable. We cannot speak about a capitulation as being in the cards. Maybe it will happen, maybe it won't. What we can say is what the Russians have produced as their alternative scenario in case the plans that are promoted by Donald Trump don't succeed. And that is to offload the Ukrainian state, rump state, on the United Nations and have, as they call it, an external governance of Ukraine to see it through new elections and to form a new government with which a peace can be negotiated.

So the Russians are preparing an alternative scenario. Of course, this greatly offended Donald Trump, who wanted to take credit and get his Nobel Prize piece based on his initiative. However, his initiative is faltering because of the sabotage of Europeans who are whispering to Zelensky, don't do it, we'll support you. So they are not allowing Trump to deliver the prerequisites set by the Russians for a firm ceasefire, namely the end of hostilities against their infrastructure and several other points. Thank you. When we speak next, I'm going to ask you about the freedom of speech on college campuses

and your very unique and fascinating observations about it. I'm sure it'll still be going on. But Professor Doctorow, thank you very much for your time this morning. Your approach is so unique and crystal clear and helpful to my team and to our audiences. We try to get a handle on all these events as rapidly as they are moving. Thank you so much.

Have a great day. Look forward to seeing you next week. as rapidly as they are moving. Thank you so much. Have a great day. Look forward to seeing you next week. I look forward to it already. Oh, very good. Thanks. Thank you. And coming up later today at 2 o'clock this afternoon, on all of this, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson,

at 3 o'clock this afternoon on all of this, Professor John Mearsheimer, at 4 o'clock this afternoon, I have spoken with him already and he's madder than a wet hen over the tariffs. And this is his field. Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. MUSIC