Transcript of ‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 8 October 2025

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jqr9PzL1gY

Napolitano: 0:05
All right, thank you, everyone, for your patience. Professor Doctorow, thank you for your understanding. These gremlins happen from time to time. You were giving your opinion about whether or not President Putin will voluntarily leave office before the end of his term, and if so, why?

Doctorow:
Well, I think he will come to the realization that his inability to respond appropriately to the threats that are rising daily from the West, and his inability to exercise deterrence and to keep it in place, make his position untenable.

He has been 25 years in service. The SS Putin has grown a lot of barnacles which slow its navigation through troubled waters and it is likely the moment has arrived, or will soon arrive, for him to pass the baton to a younger generation. The younger generation is not going to be in 30s or 40s, but they’ll be in their 50s, and they are not hidden. They are visible. There are very capable people to replace him in the management of domestic affairs.

1:24
His prime minister, Mishustin, the mayor of Moscow, Sobyanin, they are world class managers and government people who travel widely, who meet extensively throughout Russia and in the near abroad, the Russia-friendly abroad. In the foreign ministry, Mr. Lavrov has an immediate replacement by somebody much more vigorous and appropriate to the age we live in. And that is Mr. Ryabkov, whose name, of course, will be familiar to you.

Napolitano: 1:56
Let me stop you here. Is there widespread talk about this, or is this view unique to a small number of people? As you know from other people who appear on this show who respect you, nobody else is saying this.

Doctorow:
Well, truth is not a popularity contest.

Napolitano:
Understood, but I just want to know if it’s a widely held view.

Doctorow:
No, I cannot say yes or no, because it’s the kind of question that is not publicly discussed. That doesn’t mean that the question doesn’t exist and that people aren’t talking about it over the kitchen table. I don’t mean the man in the street, but I mean the political classes. They’re not stupid. They’re aware of the risks, and I think they are nervous. Let me just say that I’m not drawing this conclusion, which just took a long time to mature, out of thin air. As your program, one or two other programs that I appear in that have large audiences are now being dubbed into Russian. Each of these programs, like the last one that we had a week ago, had twice as many Russian viewers as the English original. We’re speaking of 150,000 people.

Now, when you speak about a poll, a number like 75,000, 100,000, 150,000, that is an unusually large audience for polling. And I look at two issues that tell me which way the wind is blowing. One is the comments, I’m speaking now of the Russian version of “Judging Freedom”, which you don’t produce, but there is a group called In Russian which produces it very well using artificial intelligence. And I look at two indices. One is the comments, which are almost, I’d say, three quarters negative.

3:56
They are by, I’d say, simple people, judging by the grammatical mistakes and the language used. They are by simple patriots who reject out of hand and without even listening to more than a few minutes of your program, they decide that we Westerners are idiots, will never understand Russian, that only Russians can understand Russian, and so forth. Then I look at the other index, which is the thumbs up. The thumbs up is systematically two times or three times bigger than these comments by redneck patriots. That tells me something.

People who are watching your program in Russian, they are, I’d call them, they’re politically active, politically interested. And people who bother to give any kind of response, whether a thumbs up down or a comment, are more active bodies. So we’re speaking of several percent. It’s never 10%, it’s less, who actually bother to comment. Well, when I see that, these numbers–

Napolitano:
There’s a conversation about President Putin’s tenure in office while he’s experiencing an 80% approval rating is not a general public one. It may be whispered in, as you say, at kitchen tables.

Doctorow:
Yeah. The 80%, I’m sure, is accurate, but they’re not asking the right question. They’re asking, is he doing a good job?

Well, if you are looking at your paycheck and you’re getting three times now a salary, what you got before the start of the war, if you’re employed now in a small town that was once an industrial town and became laid waste in the 1990s and has revived since the start of the war because of industrial production being subcontracted to local factories, then you’re pretty happy.

5:44
When you have money in the bank and you’re getting 20% interest annually, you don’t mind the 8% inflation. So for this reason, if you ask the average guy in the street about his [glitch] about [do you] approve of Putin, he’ll say yes. Now, if you ask the politically active class, that’s a different story. They’re interested in Russia’s prestige and they’re interested in the risk factor of is this tenable?

And they are the ones who are giving two-to- one approval of a conversation that you and I have in which I’m questioning Mr. Putin’s speech at the Valdai conference. What was wrong with the speech was he put Russia’s fate in the hands of Mr. Trump, which is a very foolish thing to do.

Napolitano:
Let me read what you wrote about this. This is a rather profound statement. Forgive me for looking down. I want to read it precisely. This is what you sent me the other day.

[Doctorow]:
“If Mr. Putin continues to put Russia’s fate in the hands of Donald Trump by accepting each further escalation from the West, including those enabled by the American president himself, such as secondary sanctions and delivery of long-range missiles to Ukraine, then Russia is doomed.”

Napolitano:
What do you mean by that?

Doctorow: 7:04
I mean that the very risky probing, poking at Russia is accelerating, and I see the future taking shape. On this program and others, the panelists [are] generally looking at the next few weeks. I was one of those.

[By] trying to stand out as having been so much more penetrating in my view of things than my peers, I was saying to them, “Well, looking at the progress on the ground, looking at the heavy losses of the Ukrainians on the front, the war will probably come to a culmination in a few weeks to months.”

However, in the last several weeks, the picture has changed a bit. First of all, that knowledge that the war is going badly [for] Ukraine has penetrated the skulls of the NATO leadership and of the biggest influencers of EU policies, the leaders of France and Germany. And the result is that they are putting together something that is now clear to anyone who wants to read the handwriting on the wall. And so let me give the eyeglasses to read that handwriting.

8:25
That Europe is now ready to essentially confiscate the 145 billion euros in Russian state assets in EuroClear in Belgium for the sake of so-called collateral for a loan to Ukraine that will never be repaid. This is a very refined way of getting around the question of confiscation of state assets, but it comes to the same thing. And if Russia were to say openly what Mr. Putin is unable to or unwilling to say, that this is confiscation of assets and it is an act of war– There are a number of things that are going on which in normal international relations are considered a casus belli.

The so-called piracy of the French had on this what they assumed to have been a Russian shadow fleet tanker. That is [in] normal international relations, the cause of declaring war.

Napolitano: 9:25
Right. Right. Will the theft of 165 billion in Russian state assets in European banks– this is the $64,000 question– be deemed by the Kremlin an act of war? Will the ramping up of German arms manufacturers who are making weapons that will be aimed at Moscow be considered an act of war, and should they be stopped before they complete their tasks?

Doctorow: 9:53
This is the very reason why I’m saying that Mr. Putin should reconsider his staying in office, because he has aligned himself– going back to 2016 when Mr. Obama confiscated Russian embassy properties in the United States in strict violation of all international relations, he put up with that. And Mr. Putin has put up with a great many acts of aggression against Russia, which normally could and should be declared a casus belli. Even last week at Sochi, he was asked about the Tomahawks, and he said on camera in front of the audience, he said, “Yes, this will seriously damage our relations with the United States.”

Napolitano:
Yes.

Doctorow:
It’s a very interesting thing to say, when a year ago he said, “We will respond with armed force against the United States because we were talking about long-range missiles in case they are used by Ukraine, supposedly used by them, but actually used by Americans operating those missiles against us.”

Now, after he walked off the stage at Sochi, He had a little exchange with a journalist who was a hound dog. He was with him all the time. A certain Popov Zarubin, who asked him that same question. And first, he was relaxed. He just came off the stage. He was very happy. And his answer to Zarubin was that if the United States uses those missiles, it will destroy our relationship.

11:36
Then a second later, he backed up. He said, “Oh no, no, it will damage….” I’m sorry, which is it, Mr. Putin? Damage or destroy? They’re very different. And if on such an issue, vital to Russia’s defense, Mr. Putin waffles, I think he should consider that he should leave in grace.

Napolitano:
Yesterday, October 7th, was Vladimir Putin’s birthday. Here’s what the “Moscow Times” wrote. Now I’m reading an English translation, obviously.

[Moscow Times]:
“Under constitutional changes he pushed through in 2020, Putin could remain in power until 2036 when he will be 83 years old, with no sign he wants to step down. That would make him the longest-ruling leader in Russian history, surpassing Joseph Stalin.”

Napolitano: 12:36
All right. So obviously there is talk out there if the “Moscow Times” is alluding to it.

Doctorow:
Look, let’s look at the picture. I just said that there’s a constellation that’s formed in the last several weeks. I mentioned the first part of it, but I didn’t say where it leads. It’s 145 billion euros that the EU wants to take over to provide Ukraine with assistance.

Napolitano:
It’s theft. It’s outright theft. And I would think that Putin will declare it as that. The question is, will he declare it as an act of war? But go ahead.

Doctorow:
The issue is, what will that money do? It’s enough to keep Ukraine going for three years, or four years. They’re not going to just hand it to Mr. Zelensky in one go. So they know very well they want to feed it to him to be sure the war keeps going, until when and why?

We’ve heard enough the figure 2029 is the time when Mr. Merz says that Russia will attack. Well, it’s not Russia that’s going to attack. It’s Mr. Merz that wants to attack Russia. And they’re the warmongers, and Merz is a lead warmonger, but not the only one, that want to have a war with Russia, conventional war, four years from now.

13:55
Now, if they give Mr. Zelensky this money to keep his troops fighting until then, well, you see it. It’s a bridging loan for Europe to keep Russia distracted with this war of attrition in Ukraine, while they gear up to attack Russia. Now, some of my peers have spoken of Europe very dismissively. Russian experts who are on Russian state television are not so dismissive.

When Mr. Merz puts up one trillion euros to raise military production in Germany, and when you consider that Germany is not de-industrialized yet, and has a very strong capability of using all of its automotive industry, idle factory, employees and machinery, and other heavy industry that still has not gone to rust, to create arms — well, the Russians who are thinking Russians and get a microphone also express concern. And I think they were right.

15:05
Now, I don’t believe that it will come up to that point. I think Mr. Putin will either become a changed man and ready to openly set, follow his lines, red lines, and defend them, or he’ll be out.

Napolitano:
What is the true goal of the EU warmongers? Do they really want a war with the Russian military? Is this a scheme to enrich their arms manufacturers? Is there some long-term NATO, Donald Trump- related goal? What does Starmer, Macron– and Macron of course has his own very serious problems– and Merz really want?

Doctorow: 15:51
Over the last 20 years, progressively the EU has turned from an economic project into a geopolitical project. This has been accelerated under von der Leyen, who has virtually merged NATO with the EU institutions. Consequently, the leaders of the European states collectively want to assert a geopolitical role for Europe, which can be done by humbling Russia.

I have peers who speak about the military- industrial complex in Europe as if that is driving things. I don’t agree at all. The military- industrial complex is now being raised from the dead by the political leaders who are doing this for their own purposes. Mr. Netanyahu is not the only person on earth who engages in military action for the sake of keeping himself in power.

16:56
If you look at European leaders today, that’s exactly the game they’re playing. Now, von der Leyen took it to extremes by saying, “Oh, we have these great challenges. We have to keep ourselves together”, means locked arms, under her stewardship. That’s being challenged by Mr. Merz. But the general idea of Europe as a geopolitical force is very much the order of the day among the top leaders in Europe who want to keep their positions.

Napolitano:
Wow. What do you think will happen with respect to the remilitarization by three very unpopular leaders, Merz, Starmer, and Macron? Stated differently– we only have about two minutes left before I have another commitment. My apologies because of the problem with the internet, which we’ve overcome thanks to Chris. Will this remilitarization repopularize these leaders domestically?

Doctorow: 18:01
It depends how they play their hand. If they can continue to play this war hysteria, which is going wild here in Europe with Russian drones in everybody’s back yard, then they can instill a fear in the broad population and proceed with their militarization successfully. I don’t know if they have the wisdom or the advisors at their side to help them do it. And there are serious problems within EU, as we saw with the victory of Mr. Babish in Slovakia, creating a triad of Hungary, Slovakia, and Czech Republic. I’m sorry, I meant this Czech Republic. Those three, who are your skeptics and who are a stumbling block for the warmongers led by von der Leyen. So how this will play out, nobody can say with absolute certainty, but the risks are very great, far greater than we had considered just weeks ago. That is what caused me to change my opinion on the go-slow, reasonable, only-adult-in- the-room, a description of Mr. Putin.

Napolitano: 19:14
Got it. I know you’re taking a lot of hits from a lot of people that I respect. I want you to know that I respect your intellectual honesty. And of course, this is all very good for our viewers to hear a variety of views on a variety of topics. And I look forward to seeing you next week. Thank you, Professor.

Doctorow:
Yeah, very good, bye bye.

Napolitano:
All the best. Coming up later today on this and all the other topics we’ve been discussing all week, at 11 o’clock, Colonel Douglas Macgregor. At one o’clock, Aaron Maté. At two o’clock, Professor Glenn Diesen. At three o’clock, Phil Giraldi.

19:51
Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.