Transcript of ‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 3 September

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ydnuvwbn_Y

Napolitano: 0:30
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Wednesday, September 3rd, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow will be with us here in just a moment. Russia spreads its wings commercially and thumbs its nose diplomatically. But first this.
[ad]

2:08
Professor Doctorow, welcome here, my dear friend. Before we get to the significance of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting and the effect on BRICS of the meeting this week, a couple of questions, if I might, about Ukraine. What are the attitudes, as you perceive them, among Russian elites about the likely end of the special military operation?

Doctorow: 2:39
I think they perceive that it will be resolved on the battlefield. The expectations that any of the friends of Russia like India or China, or for that matter President Trump, will bring Ukraine to the table and make them amenable to a realistic settlement, I think those expectations are minimal.

There is, if you follow the Russian state television news daily, there is a clear perception that the advances are significant, as advances on the ground, the taking of territory is now at the level of 700 square kilometers a month, whereas it had been 400 a month at the start of this year. So there is also the awareness that the front has in some respects, weakened to collapse around the logistical hub of Pokrovsk, which is of great importance to all logistical services to the Ukrainian frontline soldiers. In that respect, I think that the Russian elites have a vision of the race to the Dnieper River, which would be the culmination. There’s also talk, of course, of taking Odessa, which would be a still more dramatic denouement, conclusion, to this military conflict. That is the mood among elites.

Napolitano: 4:13
Do you foresee any circumstances under which Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky sit down at a table together?

Doctorow:
It is possible. It’s very difficult to imagine, but it is possible. However, the Russians have made it fairly clear that Mr. Zelensky’s signature on any documents will not be welcome. They could meet, they can discuss what a settlement can and should be, but they would want to have a legitimate signature on any documents concluding peace. They don’t consider his to be legitimate.

Napolitano: 4:50
Interesting. What do Ukrainian elites think? If you know, their generals, their diplomats, their senior government officials, not including President Zelensky, about the likely coming Russian military achievement of the Russian objectives on the battlefield?

Doctorow:
Well, for obvious reasons, they do not speak openly their minds. If they did, they would be in deep trouble if not imprisonment altogether. So it’s very difficult to answer your question. The Ukrainian media are tightly controlled, as we know. No criticism of the government’s policies [is] acceptable.

And the opposition leaders of the past like Timoshenko, Poroshenko, are really on board with Zelensky in his objectives. They just think they could do it better. So there is not a big split in Ukrainian elites at this moment, sufficient to encourage us to think that the Ukrainian side will back down, until the military defeat becomes impossible to conceal.

Napolitano: 6:11
What about the supranationalists, the Banderists, the people that some refer to as neo-Nazis. Do they accept the coming reality, or are they so driven by ideology that they’ll fight to the end?

Doctorow:
There was an article I think last week on Zero Hedge by one commentator who pointed out that the Russians are ensnaring the elite forces of the Ukrainian army by not pushing to full advantage their daily progress on the line of confrontation and allowing or inviting the Ukrainians to make a counter-strike, which they then snuff out, taking so many hundreds or thousands of soldiers with them. Therefore you cannot see the diminishing strength of those nationalists. Russia’s ideal is to exterminate them. And best of all, exterminate them on the field of battle so you don’t get into all the nonsense of judicial trials.

Napolitano:
You were kind enough to share that article with me and I found it fascinating. And the author’s thesis is that, as I understand it and recall it, President Putin could move for a swift victory, but that’s not what he wants. He wants a slow, methodical victory so as to eliminate as much as possible of the Ukrainian fighting force, particularly these people we’re calling the Banderists, so he doesn’t have to deal with them when the war is over.

Doctorow: 8:01
That is a very good summation. An additional small point here is that Putin wants the Ukrainian people to say “uncle”, He wants the Ukrainian people to admit that the whole of Bandera program that was imposed by the new government following in February 2014 coup d’etat, that all the principles behind it of extreme nationalism are totally discredited. For that reason, he is allowing or even encouraging the enormous extermination of capable males in Ukraine, those who were inducted into the military.

8:56
It would be possible theoretically for that to be avoided, but that would not drive home to the Ukrainian nation that they have lost and that the principles behind their fight are false.

Napolitano: 9:09
Do you have any feel for ties between MI6, CIA and the Banderists?

Doctorow:
No, that’s outside my field of competence.

Napolitano:
I know it’s outside your field, but I know you also have a lot of contacts. So I respect the intellectual honesty of your answer. And I thought I would throw it out.

Before we get to India and the Shanghai Organization and BRICS, is there any reaction in Moscow when President Trump does things like blow out of the water a Venezuelan ship, killing everybody on it without any due process whatsoever. This is arguably a homicide. This is a pre-conviction extrajudicial execution.

Does Moscow react at all internally when Trump does things like this, sort of like when he killed General Soleimani in his first term?

Doctorow: 10:12
Well, Soleimani they would react to because they are close friends of Iran, and he was a very prominent person. As regards these latest incidents, the Russians are quiet about it. You won’t find it in the news. They don’t comment on it.

Their official position remains very favorable to Trump in the belief that they can do business with him, that he is the first American president in a generation who listens to them. So they leave it at that.

Napolitano: 10:46
All right. Chris, put up the full screen from President Trump on his Truth Social [page], what the president wrote this morning.

Trump trxt:
The big question to be answered is whether or not President Xi of China will mention the massive amount of support and “blood” that the United States of America gave to China in order to help it secure its FREEDOM from a very unfriendly foreign invader.

Napolitano: 11:09
He’s talking about Japan and World War II.

Trump text:
Many Americans died in China’s quest for Victory and Glory. I hope that they are rightfully Honored and Remembered for their bravery and sacrifice. May President Xi and the wonderful people of China have a great and lasting day of celebration.

Napolitano:
Now this sarcasm that I want to ask you about, Professor, back to quoting the President,

Trump text:
Please give my warmest regards to Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un as you conspire,

Napolitano:
–as you, not as they, as you conspire

Trump text:
against the United States of America.

Napolitano:
How does the Kremlin view that type of diplomacy by sarcasm?

Doctorow: 11:50
I don’t think they’ll react at all, for the reasons I just mentioned. They don’t pay much attention to what Donald Trump says in public. I think I’ve called this out in the past. I don’t follow up closely what he says. I don’t parse his words because they’re largely double talk. And double talk to keep off balance all of his many opponents, domestically and foreign.

But I think this message is very important for a different reason. It is very sad, deeply sad, that Trump did not make arrangements to be present at the parade today. It is deeply sad.

And to make these words about hoping that American soldiers who died will be honored, I’m sorry, that’s pitiful. By the same token, let me be broader about this. I have publicly criticized on Indian television interviews Modi’s decision not to be present, because one and a half million Indians died fighting in World War II on the European and Pacific fronts. And it was a failure to honor those deaths of his compatriots, although that India was not yet a nation, that is a state in 1945. But it was disgraceful that he did not honor their memory by attending.

13:20
So it was with Trump. It’s just disgraceful that he wasn’t there. And I think it would have played out differently. What we saw on the television screens today would have looked different if Trump had been at the party.

Napolitano:
What has been the effect, the economic effect, the short-term economic effect– we can speculate the long-term, but the short-term economic effect– of Trump’s tariffs on India?

Doctorow: 13:47
Well, for me, the distinguishing consequence was what looks like the pullout of India from the quadrilateral arrangements for a containment- of-China policy and/or a proto-NATO in Indo-Pacific, of which they were members after 25 years of cultivating this relationship by Washington. I think that was the end result that Trump sought and he got it.

Now as to the other consequences, of course the great deal of noise has been made about these tariffs, though they apply to manufactured [goods] and primarily to textiles, which is an important employer in India. So the political impact in India is greater than the dollar value of trade that is being lost as a result of these tariffs, considering that these are low-paid textile workers who will be out of a job.

But the major component of US-Indian trade, which is IT, software programming, business intelligence done under contract or even with subsidiaries of American corporations in India. This remains intact, $80 billion worth out of $100 billion in trade as far as I understand it, of exports to the United States. And then pharmaceuticals also are untouched.

But the way that this was brought in and the insulting remarks by Trump in his telephone conversation with Modi made it inevitable that India would react and would dig in the heels and would demonstrate its independence and sovereignty from the United States. So this is what happened.

Napolitano: 15:46
What has been the effect on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and on BRICS, the combined effect of the sanctions on Russia, the sanctions on China, the sanctions on India? Could one argue that the effect has been the opposite of what Trump wanted, a more unified, strengthened, commercially adaptable and integrated Shanghai Organization and BRICS?

Doctoorow: 16:18
Well, that assumes we know what Donald Trump wanted. And I’m saying that is an arguable case that he wanted the opposite of what he said he wanted. Nonetheless, let’s come back to the question that you posed, which is very serious, and I’m very glad that you have brought the two subjects up together. Because in the broad public, there is confusion of what is BRICS and what is Shanghai Cooperation Organization. How are they different?

Well, they are different, at least in most simplified way we could say that BRICS was from the beginning an economic and commercial trade organization to bring together these countries of the global south and Russia for the sake of greater prosperity, trade not going through the dollar, and things like that. It was not primarily a geopolitical organization or certainly not a defense organization.

17:13
Looking at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or SCO, we’re looking at something that was founded at the start of the new millennium when terrorism, particularly the Islamic state, Islamic fundamentalism was rife, was a very big issue globally. And it was founded by China and by Russia, first of all, to secure the territory between them, for which they could be competitors. And the United States, of course, is one of those hoping that they would be fierce competitors and would be at one of the throats.

17:47
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization was precisely created to avoid that, to moderate their joint governance of the big territory, populous territory between them. It also, as a security organization, it announced its goals to be anti, to combat terrorism, and combat narco trading. And what we’ve seen are baby steps from that initial primarily security and regional look, Central Asia primarily, to a more broader Eurasian framework extending all the way out to Belarus in the west and to the United Arab Emirates in the southwest. So geographically it has expanded, although it’s still Asia.

18:38
And then the remit, the mission statement has been by baby steps going in the direction of economics, trade, and banking. And there was a big step, not a baby step, but a big step this past weekend when Xi announced the plans to create a SCO development bank. So what we see is the elements of BRICS are now being fully developed within a limited geographic area. BRICS is global. The SCO is regional, but of course the region takes in 40% of the world’s population.

Nonetheless, it is regional. India, China, and Russia are the big players. What happened this weekend was yes, the remit has changed, the ignition statement has broadened, and the role of India, I think, has been offered the possibility to be one of the three governing countries of SCO.

Napolitano:
Oh, that is profound.

Doctorow: 19:47
India was on the sidelines. India is on the governing board of BRICS, but it was not on the governing board of SCO. And now that SCO is becoming kind of regional BRICS, it is both logical and important. I also would like to introduce a remark that was made by Glenn Diesen, when we had a recent conversation. And I think it’s very appropriate to understand what’s going on, that when Russia and China were involved in a security mission in SCO, Russia and China are pretty balanced. Oh yes, okay. China has a bigger army in manpower numbers, but Russia has a much more effective and battle-practiced army.

20:28
So they are pretty balanced in military and security issues. When it becomes very economic, banking, finance, well, the economy of China is many times the size of the Russian economy. And Russia would be a junior partner. By bringing in India as an equal partner, Russia improves its feeling of comfort in SCO. This was Diesen’s observation, and I think it is a very good insight.

NJapolitano:
Very astute observation, and I’m grateful that you raised it. What is the significance of this Siberia 2 pipeline, which I guess will be the longest pipeline in the world by far, to deliver– is it oil or natural gas? enlighten me– from the top of Russia into the bowels of China?

Doctorow: 21:22
It has several dimensions to it. Yes, it is primarily to double the amount of natural gas that Russia is delivering to China on pipeline.

The Power of Siberia 1, which has been operating for several years, and is close to 50 billion cubic meters of gas a year, now itself will be raised as part of separate agreements that were reached this past weekend by another 12 billion cubic meters. And Siberia, Power of Siberia 2, which has been in talking, in discussions year after year. I know two years in a row, the Vladivostok Eastern Economic Forum, which is supposed to be the big platform for Russia to announce its investment projects in the Far East. Each year there was discussion will the Chinese come in and sign it off? They didn’t.

22:27
This year, ahead of the forum, the forum starts on Friday, ahead of the forum, the Russians came out and said, it has been done. And this was announced yesterday by the “Financial Times”, although they had to kick the tires and say that the financial details aren’t yet in place, but they admitted this is a legally binding commitment to construct that pipeline, which has an additional feature that it passes through Mongolia. It goes more directly to the interior of China and from the interior it passes all the way down to Shanghai. But its features are several, and they are not widely announced, so I’ll add a couple of additional factors that Russian television talks about. That is spurs of this pipeline will be feeding natural gas into parts of the Russian Far East that have not been served by any pipelines, and which are energy short.

23:30
And for example, in far eastern Siberia, they will be building a major production center for fertilizer, based on this gas. So Russia will be serving itself. And the transiting of Mongolia is a very big issue. For Mongolia, it will be an important source of additional income, and it locks the three together. The United States has been doing its best to prise Mongolia away from Russia and China.

Well, it’s failed, guys. This pipeline across Mongolia means Mongolia is a fraternal country with Russia and China and not with the United States.

Napolitano: 24:10
And there’s not much the United States can do about this unless they’re going to engage in sabotage like on Nord Stream 2. How long will it take, before we run, how long will it take to build this?

Doctorow:
The early ’30s. So I think about five, seven years, something like that. And it will be receiving gas from those gas fields which had been supplying Western Europe and are now underutilized because Western Europe is boycotting pipeline gifts, xxxxxx pipeline gas. The fact is that Europe is buying a lot of liquefied natural gas for Russia.

Napolitano: 24:48
Another topic for our next talk, the absurd decisions of Western Europe. Professor Doctorow, thank you very much. Thanks for your time. As always, thank you for the illuminating little lecture on BRICS and SCO. Very, very helpful and very timely. All the best. We’ll see you again next week.

Doctorow:
Thanks. Bye-bye.

Napolitano:
Thank you. Coming up later today at 11 this morning, Aaron Maté; at one this afternoon, Max Blumenthal; at two this afternoon, Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski; at three this afternoon, Phil Giaraldi.

25:27
Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.