Transcript of ‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 29 October

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhLsCsqkw9E

Napolitano: 0:31
Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Wednesday, October 29th, 2025. Dr. Gilbert Doctorow will be with us in just a moment on President Putin’s next moves. But first this.
[ad]

1:59
Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, welcome here, my dear friend. Thank you for accommodating my schedule in the US. This is an early hour. What is the Russian view, whether it is Kremlin elites or folks in the street, about the cancellation of the Trump-Putin-Bucharest conference?

Doctorow:
There’s a lot of confusion and with good reason. The news coming out of Moscow has been changing every day. And that is not good, because you like to see consistency of message from a major world power. And we’re not seeing that.

Well, if we don’t see it from the United States, Donald Trump, it’s understandable. We all know how volatile he is, but the Russians have always made a very important commitment to solid, reliable positions. Now, what I’ve seen in the last two days– for example, two days ago, the Russian news agencies were reporting that President Putin said he agrees to Trump’s conceptualization of the resolution of the conflict with Ukraine. Very interesting.

3:15
Yesterday his foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, said, “My goodness, we understand now that Trump has gone back on the commitments he made in Anchorage and is looking for an immediate ceasefire and not addressing the fundamental causes of the war.” Well, all of this is possible, but as I said, it does not demonstrate confidence in the Putin administration. It looks like confusion, and that is not good.

Napolitano: 3:53
Well, is it fair to conclude that after– and of course you and I were not flies on the wall, I wish one of us had been, probably you, because you have the language skills– of the telephone call between Marco Rubio and Sergey Lavrov, at the end of which Lavrov said, “What’s this nonsense?” I’m paraphrasing, he doesn’t speak this harshly. “What is this nonsense about a ceasefire? Are we back to that again.” Now look, we all know Rubio is a neocon. We all know Rubio is in the Victoria Nuland camp when it comes to Ukraine. But of course he works for Donald Trump. Is it realistic to come to the conclusion that Rubio said something to Sergei Lavrov, which Lavrov interpreted to mean this is not a step forward?

Doctorow:
Yes. And as you said, we all know that Rubio works for Donald Trump. The Russians’ position now is that Rubio works against his boss.

Napolitano:
Yes. Yes. I mean, if the Russians believe that Rubio is working against Donald Trump, which by the way, Dr. Doctorow, many inside the Beltway believe that. Many of your colleagues on this show remind the viewers of the public and apparently persistent animosity between the two of them. Many recount the story of Mrs. Adelson, Trump’s enormous donor, saying, I want Marco as the vice president and Trump saying he would drive me crazy. I’ll make him the secretary of state and keep him at bay.

I mean, all this stuff is more than rumor. There is evidence to support all of it. But isn’t it dangerous if the Russian Foreign Ministry believes that the American Department of State is at odds with the President of the United States?

Doctorow:
Well, it is. And as I was yet saying, the confusion that we see in Washington has a parallel in Moscow. There is no question now, but there is open, well, actually, how open it is depends on whether you believe what you hear on the talk shows, but that there is definitely a dispute in the leading members of the establishment in Moscow over how to handle the States and whether or not Mr. Putin’s “gently, gently” approach is paying off or is reducing Russians’ deterrent image and force.

6:44
Was Foreign Minister Lavrov either admonished or corrected, softly as the Russians can do it so nicely, by Dmitry Peskov, the president’s official spokesperson?

Doctorow:
I didn’t sense that. Lavrov, well, that could explain why he reversed himself yesterday.

Napolitano:
Well, that was going to be my next question, because now he’s whistling a different tune. And then you mentioned this fellow that I don’t even know about, but I think you watched them on our friend Dimitri Sime’s show, Dmitri Trenin. So untie this knot for us, please.

Doctorow:
Well, every which way. The Russians, the most knowledgeable, the people who give inputs to Putin and represent the well-informed elites, they are also confused. I’ve watched– I was very surprised even now, a few minutes before the show started, I watched the afternoon edition of “The Great Game”. When you speak about Dimitry Simes, you’re speaking about the evening edition of the same program, “The Great Game”. Formerly, the chief of the whole thing was a certain member of parliament, the member of the Duma, the grandson of the Soviet leader Molotov, who brought real gravitas to the program, who was a member of, a long-standing member of the Duma, and had, it was the head of Ruski Mir, which was the NGO, you could call it, Moscow-subsidized NGO to look after the interests of the Russian diaspora, as some speak. And this Nikonov is not there.

You have Simes taking over the evening program, it’s clear that he’s running the show himself. And now I was surprised to see that someone else has taken over the afternoon show, someone whom I know quite well, because he was the major moderator of a rival talk show called “Time Will Tell”, “Bremya Pekazhet”. I was on that program in 2016 as well. So I saw him in action. He’s quite good, but he is not the same rank.

So I would say the program, “The Great Game”, has been taken down a few notches. Simes is great, but he’s not Nikonov. This one is the one I saw in the afternoon is very good, but he’s not Simes. So that program which was really, I thought it was ahead of the competing program of Vladimir Solovyov, whom I quote extensively. It looks like they’ve fallen behind.

9:29
Solovyov has been uniformly very hawkish and very critical of Putin’s policies, never of Putin the man, but of Putin’s policies with respect to the gently, gently approach to–

Napolitano;
All right, well, is this musical chairs at a Russian talk show orchestrated by the government? Is it indicative of the Kremlin’s thinking or is it the decision of the producers? Listen, I’ve been in the business for 30 years, as you know. Is it a decision of producers to get more eyeballs on the screen?

Doctorow:
I don’t know. I think there’s a split in the producers because the Simes show that you’re talking about is, like Solovyov, very critical of what Putin is doing without naming Putin. The show that I just watched now was very sympathetic to what Putin is doing.

Napolitano;
On the same network.

Doctorow;
On the same … network, yes.

Napolitano;
Right, right, all right. Let’s switch gears slightly. The new sanctions that President Trump has imposed on the two Russian oil giants. Has there been, I can’t imagine there has been yet, but I’ll ask you anyway, has there been or is there likely to be a palpable effect on the Russian economy? I’m going to ask you later about the war and then later about BRICS, but right now just the Russian economy, has there been an effect?

Doctorow;
It depends on whom you’re listening to. The Putin line you’ve heard very well that it’s had no effect. we’ve seen these factions come before, and so forth. That is exactly what I heard 10 minutes ago on “The Great Game”. They were all saying that “Oh the Russians will find a way of getting around it. We already have understandings with the Indians. We will sell oil from Lucoil to a minor player, minor Russian refiner, who will then be the reseller to India” and so forth. That is their story. I’m very skeptical of that story. The Indians have said directly that they will not buy Russian oil.

11:41
And I think it’s going to be difficult for them to play this game that was just described on Russian television and get away with it. The effect on the economy will be big. Is big. This is not speculation. We all know the news. That Lucoil a couple of days ago announced that they are trying to sell all of their overseas properties before November 21st, which is the US deadline before those properties are in turn sanctioned and become unsaleable.

Napolitano:
Well, that’ll be a fire sale if they’re trying to sell it in four weeks.

Doctorow:
Precisely so. Look, I’ve been in business development. That was my professional job title for 25 years in major corporations. And I know very well what this means. How much effort and expense, was invested by LucOil to build its European network, vast amounts. And now in a month, it’ll be lost. Now, you tell me, is that an effect on the Russian economy? It sure as hell is.

Napolitano: 12:44
What about on the special military operation? Will the sanctions affect that? I don’t mean politically. I mean in terms of the ability of the military to get the supplies it needs in a timely manner.

Doctorow:
I don’t think the Russian military has any problems. And there, in this point, I’m completely in agreement with the Kremlin’s official line. The war will go on; the problem is at what speed, and whether or not there is in the foreseeable future any conclusion. The Kremlin is very vague on this. And for me, that vagueness means they expect this war to go on for several more years.

Napolitano:
Several more years. Will the Russian elites, will the intelligence services, will the senior military people have the patience to endure this for several more years, or will there be pressure on President Putin to level Kiev and get this over with in a week?

Doctorow:
Well, you know, my personal position is the latter of the two scenarios. I don’t believe there is the agreement. It’s splitting now. I’d say the opinions are splitting over the acceptable duration of this war and bombing the hell out of Kiev now and getting it over with. So it’s very hard to say which way it’s going to go.

Well, it’s quite possible that Mr. Putin himself will do what’s necessary and will bomb hell out of Kiev. It’s quite possible that he won’t, that this war will go on for a time longer before there’s some change at the top in Russia.

Napolitano: 14:27
We had a guest on yesterday, a retired military person, whom I respect, opine that the Ukrainians have only lost about 100,000 troops. Isn’t the number, the true number, many, many times that, isn’t it, in excess of a million Ukrainian troops killed or so disabled they cannot go back to the military?

Doctorow:
Well, the figure goes as high as 1.7 million if you take together both killed and maimed, which is what generally is done because it’s very hard to distinguish the absolute identification– who was killed and so forth is not available. But it’s certainly not 100,000. That’s an absurd number.

Napolitano;
The Russian number, of course, is much lower, even though the Russian military is much larger, because the population base is much larger. Do we have any idea what the Russian number is, or do they hide it like the Israelis?

Doctorow:
No, they hide it. But let’s assume it’s 150,000. This is the number that’s bandied around by my colleagues who understand these questions much better than I do. So I accept their number. But let’s put this in a perspective.

That’s twice, more than twice what the United States lost in the Vietnam War. And the American population at that time was twice what the Russian population is today. So the impact on society, let’s say, is four times, in terms of losses and families, of what the US experienced back then, and then it had enormous political impact. I cannot believe that this will go on indefinitely in Russia without it becoming a political issue.

Napolitano:
Well, you often send us missives about your interactions with people in supermarkets and greengrocers and shopping malls and public conveyances. Are Russian mamas whose boys are in the military or whose boys are of draft age irritated about this or is the population quiescent and patient and expecting a victory?

Doctorow: 16:48
Well, I can’t speak about the Russian mamas, because I haven’t met any yet, and probably will not in the time that I’m here. What I can say is there’s an old expression in Russia describing how the population deals with all kinds of crises and that is “lyudi molchat”, “the people are silent”. Our old friend vice president Agnew would appreciate it as in his term the silent majority. The sound majority of the Russian population doesn’t say [much].

Napolitano:
Well here’s an interesting comment from President Putin just three days ago about allowing Ukrainian soldiers to surrender peacefully. I wonder if in your view this is political propaganda or if the president of Russia believes that the war is nearing an end and there’s going to be a lot of surrendering. Chris, cut number eight.

Putin: (English voice over)
First of all, to minimize unnecessary human casualties, I’m asking to take all necessary measures to enable the surrender of Ukrainian troops, those who want to surrender. We have to treat prisoners of war in accordance with international law as well as Russian law. Russia’s army has historically always been merciful towards a defeated enemy.

Reporter Medvedenko:
First of all, he was lauding the successes of the Russian army in Pokrovsk and in Kupyansk. He was saying, as you’ve heard just now, that basically there is a situation where Ukrainian troops are near surrender, and Russia should enable that. So he’s been saying that Russian forces have encircled those two cities. You will see that both Pokrovsk and Kupyansk are around 50, 60 percent controlled by Russian forces.

Napolitano: 18:38
So why is the president saying this, if you have any idea? And secondly, why did he say it wearing a military uniform? Is that customary for Vladimir Putin? We’ve seen it two or three times now.

Doctorow:
Yeah, I don’t think his wearing the uniform is a message to the West in any way. I think it’s a message to his own people, to give them some comfort that the man who bears the title of Supreme Commander, Commander in Chief of the armed forces, is capable of wearing a military uniform, not just a business suit. He couldn’t have a more civilian Minister of Defense than Mr. Beelowsof, who after a few weeks in office, also put on a military uniform, though he looks very uncomfortable in it. This is a message domestically. I don’t think it signifies a hardening of the line by Mr. Putin in any way. But the message, this whole story about surrender, we’ve heard before, because it’s not the first time when Russians have surrounded Ukrainian troops.

19:43
This was a big deal about a year ago with the, in Kursk, when also the Ukrainian forces that were surrounded in Kursk in the last stages of the Russian North Korean liberation of the occupying forces in that Russian oblast that had been invaded by Mr. Zelensky. Well, we heard, we knew where that went. Mostly they were slaughtered. And I expect because Kiev refused these people the right to leave.

That also happened earlier, in earlier stages of this war, going back to Mariupol. When what happened was those who wanted to surrender were shot in the back by their comrades who were built of sterner stuff. That is unlikely that Kiev is going to respond positively to this proposal. It is unlikely that those who would like to desert or surrender will be allowed to do that by the hardliners that Kiev has in their ranks. So it is Mr. Putin exculpating himself for what could be the slaughter of 5,000 troops.

Napolitano: 21:06
All right. Let me go back before we end, Dr. Doctorow, about the Rosneft and Lukoil sanctions. What’s the effect on BRICS of those sanctions You’ve already told us that the Indians, a significant member of BRICS, are not going to buy Russian oil.

Doctorow:
I think when the dust settles, people will find that this exact issue that you’re raising now was one of the dominant factors in the construction of the sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil, not just to punish Russia, because how significant the punishment will be is still totally unclear, but to drive a wedge between these three founding members of BRICS, where the Chinese and the Indians would double-cross Russia just to serve their own economic interests and would stop buying its oil. Whether or not a workaround is achieved, we will see only in a few weeks. But let’s remember that whatever is done, Russia is going to lose several months of oil exports. That is unmistakable.

22:24
Any work around will take time to put in place. And considering that 25% of the Russian state budget depends on those exports, they will be a hit.

Napolitano:
But none of this will affect, in your view, and if this is your view, it’s also the view of Scott Ritter, Larry Johnson, and Colonel Macgregor. I haven’t spoken to Colonel Wilkerson about it yet. None of this will affect the Russian troops on the ground.

Doctorow:
I agree with that in principle, but not entirely. The nuance I would add here is that paradoxically, this is a message to Putin to get it over with now. The longer he prolongs the war, the bigger the impact of the deprivation of 10% of the budget will be on the ability to conduct the war. In that respect, Trump is right. So it is a message to Putin in a very specific way, which isn’t obvious to the public, to get the damn war over with.

Napolitano:
Do you think he will get that message and accelerate the military activity so as to bring the war to a resolution quickly and from the Russian perspective amicably?

Doctorow: 23:44
It may happen, but not of his own free will. My colleagues have said that he works in a collegial way. Well, that’s not entirely true. I ask you to go back and look at the video of Putin’s statements in 22nd, 23rd of February, 2022, when he announced first the Russian recognition of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent countries and then concluded with them a mutual-defense pact.

If you look at Shoigu, if you look at the other members of the Putin cabinet, they didn’t look too happy. They looked absolutely miserable. Therefore, the idea that this is all collegial is greatly exaggerated. And I do believe that the situation is becoming so absurd when Putin and Lavrov are contradicting their statements from day to day that he will be under pressure, that he cannot resist and he will change his policy.

Napolitano:
Fascinating observations. Thank you, Dr. Gilbert Doctorow. Always a pleasure. We look forward to seeing you next week. Thank you, my friend.

Doctorow:
Thank you.

Napolitano: 24:53
Of course. And coming up later today at 11 this morning, Aaron Maté; at one this afternoon, Scott Ritter; at two this afternoon, Anya Parampil with the latest on Venezuela; at three this afternoon, Phil Giraldi. And if you’re looking forward to a change of pace, tomorrow Thursday at nine in the morning, Jack is back. Well, that’s a young picture of him. Oh my goodness. He must’ve sent that one in. Anyway, Jack Devine, former head of the CIA for Latin America will be here and he will do his best to try and defend what the CIA is doing in Venezuela today. That’s Thursday at nine AM.

25:37
Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.