Transcript of ‘Judging Freedom,’ 25 April edition

Transcript submitted by a reader

Napolitano: 0:33
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Wednesday, April 23rd, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us from Brussels. Professor Doctorow, always a pleasure.

Before we get into the Rubio-Zelensky standoff and what General Kellogg is doing and saying, what is the perception in Europe as to whether the passing of Pope Francis is of any geopolitical significance?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD:
That is an angle that I haven’t seen discussed. Of course there’s discussion of whether or not there’ll be an African cardinal named to succeed him, whether it’ll be a reformer, because he had an understudy who will take over, or whether it’ll be a traditionalist. But that is the dogma side; and the personality of Francis as a pope of the people, that is the line that almost all European media are examining and promoting. I don’t see a geopolitical side, the way you could if you looked at what happened after the death of John Paul II. That was indeed geopolitical. This one isn’t.

Napolitano: 1:56
One wonders why just two months ago, the pope called for an investigation in Gaza as to whether or not there was genocide going on. I mean, talk about too little too late. Couldn’t he have sent Cardinal Perlan, the Secretary of State, to Netanyahu saying “Stop, stop suppressing Christianity, stop slaughtering Palestinians”?

Doctorow:
Well, he took many stands. He was a person who was not afraid to speak against the prevailing wisdom. And as a Russian observer, I’m of course thinking of what he told Zelensky to wave the white flag and to do the brave thing and spare his people. So you can look at many things that he has said and done. Some of them may not be so attractive as the one you just mentioned.

But overall, as regards my territory, he was highly regarded, Putin in particular had very kind and warm words in his eulogy because he saw him three or four times. So that is the Russian angle. The West-European angle, as I said, is to question dogma, whether traditionalist or reformist would take over.

Napolitano; 3:16
Right. I think you know where I’m coming from, and I’m going to drop the subject, but I’m an old-fashioned pre-Vatican II Latin-mass-attending style Catholic. So I thought that Francis deviated substantially from the deposit of faith which he’s supposed to preserve.

Doctorow:
Your traditionalism has particularly importance here in Belgium, because a country like this, when it abandoned the Latin mass, abandoned a unified church and country. So it’s–

Napolitano:
Is Vladimir Putin a serious believing Russian, member of the Russian Orthodox Church?

Doctorow:
This is absolutely true. He has very close from nations with the patriarch Kirill. There’s a great deal of mutual respect, and both of them are doing their best to be patriots. So there’s a lot that binds them together. As to faith, yes, I think nobody would question today that Mr. Putin, the ex KGB operative, so to speak, is indeed a believer.

Napolitano: 04:24
I have a close friend who’s a Roman Catholic priest in one of the very, very traditional orders, who has a close friend who’s a Russian Orthodox priest who tells my priest friend that President Putin’s confessor travels with him so that wherever he is he can go to confession. I’ve never really heard of that in the modern era, you know European kings had that, two, three hundred years ago. I’ve never heard that in the modern era. If true, and I believe it is, it’s utterly … utterly remarkable.

5:03
Okay, you mentioned President Zelensky. Is he free politically to enter into a peace accord, or does he do so at the risk of his own life?

Doctorow:
I think the latter is true. This traps him in an impossible losing position, whatever he does. And I think this last couple of days we’ve seen him smoked out. Well, in the last four days we’ve seen him smoked out. The first move that President Putin made for this purpose, as a public relations move, very clever move, was to announce the 30-hour ceasefire for Easter. There he caught Mr. Zelensky on the back foot, didn’t know what to say, looked and sounded very disagreeable, unpleasant, ugly in fact, when he finally conceded that the Ukrainians would follow suit.

6:02
Now something much more important has come up, and that is the announcement that was really extensively reported in the “Financial Times”, that President Putin is willing to make a substantial concession for purposes of negotiating a peace, namely not to insist on Russia taking over the full territory of the four provinces in Eastern Ukraine that they incorporated formally into the Russian Federation, after the referendum. That looked like a big concession, that even the “Financial Times” was speaking of it in those terms. And then you have– that was pressure on Zelensky to also make a move. And indeed Zelensky did not make a move, which explains Mr. Rubio’s cancellation of attending the negotiations or talks in London today.

And it put the Russians exactly where they want to be, to be shown in favor of concessions to reach a lasting peace where the Ukrainians are still holding on to their maximus position. I don’t think that Zelensky has a choice. If he were to make concessions, it would be at the price of his own life.

Napolitano: 7:21
The “Financial Times” article to which you refer reflects, I’ll read the headline, “Putin’s offer to halt war at current front line piles pressure on Ukraine”. The current front line must be fairly close to a hundred percent of the four oblasts, no?

Doctorow:
No, close to a hundred percent in Lugansk; but from the beginning, Lugansk was largely in Russian hands. Donetsk, it’s about 60%, maybe 70% in Russian hands. And the other two, Zaporozhzhye and Kherson, are probably closer to 50%. The Kherson city indeed is in Ukrainian hands, although the territory of the oblast is, as I say, 50% Russian.

8:12
So he would be making an important concession, but just let’s keep in mind that Piskofin, asked about this “Financial Times” report, said it was fake news. That is to say, formally speaking, the Russians have disowned that. And there’s a reason for it. This was a tactical move by the Kremlin addressing the West, addressing Washington in particular. But it was not supposed to be known within Russia, because it would raise many, many questions about Putin’s loyalty to the missions of the war that were embarrassing.

So it was really addressing Washington and if the “Financial Times” is correct, then this was somehow by connivance passed along to them to do exactly what they did, a front-page long article, but was not intended to be known or examined closely within Russia itself.

Napolitano: 9:19
Is it known in Russia and has there been any reaction to it amongst either the elites or the common folks?

Doctorow:
I can’t say about a reaction, because that will only come up this evening. It was really last night’s news after Russian state news and Russian talk shows already had closed down. So this evening, I expect there’ll be discussion of it.

Napolitano: 9:45
Very interesting. So your view is that this is a true and accurate report. They just aren’t sure that it should have been leaked.

Doctorow:
No, I think they’re happy it was leaked, because the intention was to do exactly what has happened, to call out the seriousness of Mr. Zelensky and all of his discussions of an unconditional 30-day ceasefire, blah, blah, blah, and show that when push comes to shove, he doesn’t want to give up anything. He said yesterday that he would not acknowledge Crimea as Russian, and that is the proof positive that he has dug in his heels and is against a peace with Russia.

Napolitano: 10:30
Is that the reason for which Secretary of State Rubio is not going to London either today or tomorrow or wherever they are, to resume the negotiations?

Doctorow:
I’m certain it is. This gave those within the Team Trump the hand that I’ve said they wanted, which is to have a good reason to abandon the talks and to pull out support from under Ukraine and to proceed with a rapprochement or détente with Russia as if the war never took place.

Napolitano: 11:09
Except that the person they’re sending, well, it was going to go either way, but had Secretary Rubio been there, this person would have been second amongst the American negotiators; now he’s first. And that’s the belligerent old neocon, General Kellogg. I mean, who’s going to take credibly anything that he says, after the proposal he made of dividing Ukraine up amongst the “allies”, as if it were Europe in August of 1945?

Doctorow:
Well, Kellogg’s presence is supposed to be holding the hands of the British and the French and Zelensky. He is not– he’s there kind of decorative, he’s an extra on the stage. I don’t, certainly the Russians don’t take him with any seriousness, and he’s doing that role. I don’t believe that he understands how he’s being used without being honored, but that’s his role.

12:11
His presence there gives an appearance of American continuity, but the reality is, I think it’s disruptive. I don’t believe that this procedure will go on very long.

Napolitano: 12:25
Let’s go back to the 30-hour ceasefire. How did it go? I agree with you, it was a brilliant PR move, and it caught President Zelensky flat-footed, but was it honored?

Doctorow: 12:41
The bottom line, the remarks, but let me, before I get to the bottom line, the remarks of the Russians, but they counted 4,000 Ukrainian violations of the ceasefire. A lot of these were artillery shells that were fired. Some of them were drones, some of them were airplane configuration drones, which are quite dangerous of course, but mostly were shot down. They counted 4,000. The Ukrainian strangely– usually they wait for the Russians to say something and then take it on as their own or maybe double it– the Ukrainians only claimed 2,000 violations by the Russians. But that’s just, these are just words.

13:23
The bottom line is what Vladimir Putin said at the end Sunday after making this announcement of violations, that indeed the Ukrainian attacks on the line of confrontation were significantly fewer than before or after the 30-hour ceasefire.

Napolitano:
How is the attitude amongst the Russian people toward the war? I mean, did many expect it to go on this long and be this methodically slow?

Doctorow:
Oh, not at all. And I’m sure there’s widespread disappointment that it has gone this slowly. Look, we were talking several months ago about the imminent Russian capture of Pakrovsk. This is a logistics nexus. It’s maybe 10, 15 kilometers away from the front lines today.

The Russians were focusing in, they were coming around from the north side and cutting it off. Wait a minute, nothing’s happened. That’s to say They have not taken Pakrovsk. And this is typical of what’s going on. There are a lot of small, incremental captures of this town or that town, but not any change in the battlefield that you could consider decisive.

14:48
And it’s because Putin is doing everything possible to minimize Russian casualties and because the war is not what everyone’s talking about. Yes, we all know about the artillery problem and Ukraine has a 10 to 1 disadvantage in its artillery shells. But wait a minute, the war has changed. The war now is dominated by the drones. And the drones, thank you very much, the Ukrainians are doing very well. They got several thousand from Britain, drones. They make their own drones. And the drones are hazardous, dangerous, and not easy to stop. Russian reporters who died in the last several weeks — these were drone attacks on their cars.

15:31
And the Russians do not mask their army, precisely to avoid large casualties from drone attacks. Also, look, nobody’s talking much about the casualty figures. Going back two, three months ago, every day the Russians were reporting 2000, 1800, 2200, in that range, Ukrainians killed or mutilated, that is, so their further participation in the war is excluded. Wait a minute, we don’t see that now. Now I watch Russian television, and on this front, over 200 Ukrainians were killed, now on that front– the daily figures are down sharply.

And that means that essentially the level of violence has gone down precisely because of drone warfare.

Napolitano: 16:19
Interesting. Are you suggesting that President Putin’s offer to draw the line where the military is now is a product of a military necessity as well as a political acumen?

Doctorow:
I would turn that around. It’s a result of political necessity. Because militarily the Russians can overwhelm Ukraine. There’s no question about it. But with what results? Just remember that about less than two weeks ago, the Russians marked because they’ve been– as they come down the countdown to the 80th anniversary of the capture of Berlin and the end of the European war– the Russians every few days have on the television screen, on the television screen, some other town or city that was captured by the Red Army in the closing months of World War II. And they had, very recently, it was marking the capture of Vienna, which cost the Russians, in three days, four days, 150,000 dead soldiers.

Mr. Putin is not Stalin. He cannot afford to have that type of horrible losses that xxxx xxxx xxxx to take cities. So this is dictated by political necessity. There would be political chaos if he were to sacrifice lives so irresponsibly.

Napolitano: 17:47
Is the threat by Marco Rubio, and somewhat endorsed by his boss, to turn off the spigot of military supplies a serious one in your view?

Doctorow:
I think it is, and this is the key question, that Mr. Trump wants to wash his hands of the Ukrainian war. I think that’s almost a given. But what follows upon that? Is he going to continue the intelligence sharing? Is he going to do, as you say, turn on or off the spigot? This will really be the decisive element, factor, in whether we can say this is, this WAS Biden’s war, or this IS Trump’s war. And I imagine the president is well aware of that distinction.

Napolitano: 18:35
Well the president has said it’s Biden’s war and it’s not his. I think most Americans recognize that right now it is his, after 100 days in office. He campaigned saying the war would be over within 24 hours of his election. As far as we all know here in the US, the spigot is still flowing. And it doesn’t consist of cash any more, but it consists of all the military equipment Kiev wants and all the intelligence data that Kiev needs.

Doctorow:
Well, the notion that it’s all the equipment that Kiev wants is a notion coming from Washington, not from Kiev. The Americans, like the Europeans, have supplied a lot of junk to Kiev, and everybody knows that, and I doubt that it stopped. They were cleaning out the stables.

They were cleaning out the warehouses for junk that had been accumulated and was still on the books, And that’s all shipped to Kiev at the prices that were in the books, not the real value. So how much this all can help Kiev is really, is questionable, but hasn’t turned the tide in the last three years. It’s certainly not going to turn the tide now. It’s a moral boost to Ukraine, which is valuable, of course. War is psychological, not just physical, but as to enabling them to fight on, it’ll take more than what’s in the U.S. pipeline.

Napolitano: 20:08
What happens if the US does turn off that spigot?

Doctorow:
Nobody knows. Look, the shows, the talk shows and the discussion, interview programs that are on, the responsible ones that are on YouTube, have experts who are military experts. I’m not one, but I follow closely what they’re saying. And there’s cacophony.

20:29
There’s a very broad array of dates that people give for when the war can end. Of course, nobody knows for sure because the psychological element is unpredictable, a mental collapse. But the reality is, that I see, is that as I’ve mentioned in past programs, the Ukrainians are putting up young soldiers who have some adequate training, who at least, who have the respect of the Russian soldiers on the ground, who have to deal with them. And as I say, the numbers game changed because just looking at artillery shells doesn’t tell you the real status of the war, just as just looking at numbers of soldiers doesn’t give you the real status. It’s this war that no one anticipated, but developed of its own course, this war of drones and electronic warfare.

Napolitano: 21:22
What does your crystal ball tell you will be the status of things in four, five or six months?

Doctorow:
The war will be over. I think that one way or another there’ll be a collapse of spirit in Ukraine when the United States pulls out. That is going to sap, undermine their confidence, and confidence is decisive in the fate of a war. So there will be some change, some significant change.

Capitulation, let’s hope so, because that would be kindest at the human parameter for the Ukrainians, if they just got it over with as Pope Francis had requested. But I can’t see this going beyond this calendar year.

Napolitano:
And if there is capitulation, I would think that President Zelensky would have to flee the country.

Doctorow:
Ahead of the capitulation.

Napolitano:
Yes, yes, ahead of the capitulation.

Doctorow:
With as many of his local managers and his British minders as they can take with him, because that regime will be gone.

Napolitano: 22:34
Got it. Professor Doctorow, thank you for an excellent conversation, starting with the Pope and ending with fleeing Kiev, but very, very insightful and deeply appreciated. [cough] Pardon me. And thank you for accommodating my schedule this morning. All the best to you. We’ll see you next week.

Doctorow:
Bye bye.

Napolitano: 22:56
Thank you. Oh and safe travels professor.

Coming up later today at 2 o’clock, Max Blumenthal, some of the things going on in Israel you just won’t believe.

And at three o’clock, Phil Giraldi. Why are the Israelis suppressing Christianity in its birthplace?

23:18
Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.