Former US judge Andrew Napolitano says Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown an "almost saint-like capacity for patience and forbearance" by refraining from striking weapons and munitions facilities in NATO countries that supply arms used by Ukraine.
Speaking to RT, Napolitano argued that Russia would have a right under international law to target military facilities involved in producing weapons used against Russian territory, while stressing that Putin "does not want a war against NATO."
His comments come amid continued Ukrainian drone strikes deep inside Russia and growing Western involvement in supplying weapons to Ukraine. Napolitano also warned that the Ukraine conflict is heading towards an "acceleration" and predicted a "last-ditch effort" by some NATO countries to prevent what he described as the Russian military achieving its objectives. The interviewer (NIKKI- ) here on RT (Russia Today) is an excellent British journalist named Nikki, who asks relevant unbiased questions - contrast this with the baited, propagandized questions typical on "Meet the Press" in USA Judge Napolitano has made great progress from being a host on Faux Noise to being informed on what is really going on, and puts great effort into his Judging Freedom podcasts, bringing in informative guests.
NIKKI- In the studio now is host of Judging Freedom podcast, former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano. An absolute pleasure to have you with us today. Thank you so much for coming in.
JUDGE- Thank you, Nikki.
NIKKI- So much I want to talk to you about. Let's jump straight in with the topic of Ukraine. It seems to me like it's scandal after scandal at the moment.
I'd like to know your assessment of this recent shootout that happened on Wednesday between Ukrainian Security Intelligence and Intelligence Agencies. What's this kind of incident symptomatic of? What do you think is going on here?
JUDGE- Well, the Ukrainians are aware that they're on their last leg, so to speak, in the war. They know that their days are numbered. They continue with their efforts to disrupt life in Moscow. Their latest threat on the airport, commercial travel, is insidious and a war crime. The very threat itself is a war crime as you know, to threaten to harm civilians. And I think they know that their days are numbered. I'm not really personally familiar with the events in the shootout but it doesn't surprise me.
NIKKI- With all these scandals as we mentioned, how do you think it's being perceived by Ukraine's western backers? You see adamant, ironclad, in their support for Ukraine. Do you think this will change the perception or do you think they're adamant to continue this?
JUDGE- I think their adamance continues. I mean, the events of the past few days, now I've been here, but I can only imagine that the events of the past few days have been downplayed or not even covered in the West. In the West, particularly the UK and the US, the media is in lock step with the government's insidious efforts to use Ukraine as a battering ram against Russia. This Cold War era, what we call neocon mentality, which is failing right before their eyes, but they won't admit the failure. So, in order to try and continue to generate public support for their failures, they'll downplay events like the ones we're talking about.
Ukraine is the probably the most corrupt country on the planet, but you wouldn't know that if you live in New York or London because you just wouldn't see it in the media.
NIKKI- Yeah, it's all very concerning, especially for people like you and I who keep across all the media, not just in Russia, but elsewhere when we have this fearmongering of these tensions between Russia and the UK. We know that France and the UK have been discussing the production of these long range scout missiles directly on the territory of Ukraine. London's already handed over the classified blueprints for these military components to Kiev, courtesy of the new prime minister. In what direction is all this heading? [sighs]
JUDGE- I think it's headed into an acceleration, a last ditched effort by some of the NATO countries to try and prevent the inevitable which is the achievement by the Russian military of its objectives. Its objectives being a degrading of the Ukrainian government so that NATO will never set foot there and a liberation of the Russian-speaking peoples in the eastern part of Ukraine.
The latter part is almost, as I understand, has almost already been achieved. The former can't be achieved until Zelensky and the sort of Nazi-like people that are around him have been rem removed and defeated and the world recognizes their removal and their defeat.
NIKKI- Yeah, we see this continuous poking of the bear if you like. Do you think it is a real possibility that Russia would lash out to a European country like the UK?
JUDGE- I think that President Putin has demonstrated an almost saNikki-like capacity for patience and forbearance. He does not want a war against NATO.
However, under international law, he would have every right to strike at the munitions plants and the military, not the civilians, but the munitions plants if even if civilians work there, and the military of the countries that are producing the weapons that are striking deep into Russia.
He'd have every right to do it. I'm sure he understands that. My guess is that he's considered it, but he's been consistently patient.
Sometimes even to the dismay of his strongest supporters, he's been so patient.
But if he persists in his patience, he'll carry the day with less damage and destruction than if he goes after these people.
NIKKI- Let's move on to Gaza. Another hot topic, the Middle East and Israeli war on Gaza. Amongst the outrageous comments we've heard from the hawkish minister Ben Gvir, the latest suggestion from him is this so-called voluntary migration of Palestinians. He basically wants these almost 2 million Palestinians left in the enclave to exit within a 7-year period. How does this plan tally with you on a personal perspective as well as an international law?
JUDGE- Well, on a personal perspective, the Israelis
are engaged in genocide. A long-term obvious genocide, the
slaughter of human beings for political purposes based on their
nationality, ethnicity, or religion. I'm using a general sort of
a generic definition of genocide. There's really no way around
it. This has been going on for years and years and years.
Ben Gvir is a fanatic of the highest sort. You talk about poking
the bear.
He's trying to poke the Palestinians into some sort of a physical
or violent reaction. This is obviously not going to happen. The
United States' behavior here is reprehensible under long-standing
behavior of American presidents. The United States has funded
this genocide. Under international law, there should be a
two-state solution. The UN has voted for this many, many, many
times. Only the United States vetoes it because of the charter
requiring consent in the General Assembly, which happens
overwhelmingly, and then consent in the security council which
everybody agrees to accept the except the United States. The
federal government of the United States of America is profoundly
influenced by the Israeli government. And the means of that
influence is the donor class in the United States.
There are 535 members of the US Congress, 100 senators and 435 members of the House of Representatives. Of that 535, 350 have had their campaigns financed by the American Israeli Political Action Committee known by its acronym of AIPAC.
This is foreign money and domestic money. But it works. It profoundly influences the way they vote. Look at the polls in America. Overwhelming opposition to giving a nickel to the Netanyahu government. Look at the American Congress. Overwhelming support for giving Netanyahu whatever he wants.
Netanyahu recently was caught boasting that after all his years of lobbying, his 1,000 times I think he said he was on American television, he finally achieved his goal. He didn't articulate it, but the goal is control of the American government. He now has it because he controls Trump when it comes to decisions about Israel.
So I don't know where this is going to go. If the Democrats take control of the Congress, I don't think that President Trump will get the votes that he needs to continue financing the genocide.
NIKKI- Yeah. And it just it goes on and on. I mean, we've been showing images of the IDF targeting minors in Gaza and the West Bank for many, many years now, not just the past two years. So this idea from Ben Gvir proposes that host countries take in these Gazans over the next seven years including Turkey, Ethiopia and Congo, these countries have rejected the plan outright but -
JUDGE- They've rejected and the Palestinians have rejected it and the Israeli solution is murder, slaughtering of innocents including children. This is unacceptable in the modern world. Why doesn't some country do something about it? Answer - because the US is funding it, right?
NIKKI- So my question is because Israel seems to get its own way when it comes to the killing of children and everybody else in Gaza. Is it going to get its own way with this latest plan?
JUDGE- I don't think so. I can't predict how this is going to end. I do think that Prime Minister Netanyahu will not be reelected, even though he's very, very, wily and very successful politically. In my view, he's a monster, but he's a brilliant politician. But whoever replaces him, it'll just be a different personality, but the policies will be the same.
So, this won't stop until the US says it will stop. Either Donald Trump will change his mind or when he leaves office, he'll be replaced by someone who has a different attitude about all of this. The latter is unlikely in my view given the dominance of the donor class in American politics about which we spoke a few moments ago.
NIKKI- I mean Netanyahu has spoken openly. He's brought out his maps. He wants this Greater Israel realized. So when Israel started out with this mission to eliminate Hamas in Gaza, the militants are still there of course. So what is the real goal here? Is it obvious to everybody?
JUDGE- The goal is Greater Israel from the river to the sea, is their goal, but they're going to push things too far. I mean, Naftali Bennett, the former prime minister, the former chief of staff to Netanyahu and now one of his principal opponents has his sights set on Turkey.
Are they crazy? I mean, the Turkish army is probably the second largest in the area. I mean maybe third after Russian and American, but it's enormous and it would it would not take this lightly. It would not go well for Israel if they were to attack Turkey. Why do they want to attack Turkey? Because Turkey's in Syria and Syria is part of, in their view, Greater Israel.
NIKKI- Let's move on to Iran. Another Middle East issue. US Vice President JD Vance is claiming the US is not at war with Iran and that Washington is doing its best not to hit civilian targets, but quote, "Things happen." Of course, we saw the wedding in Iran hit just a few days ago. What do you make of these statements from Vance? Do they accurately describe the situation on the ground?
JUDGE- They don't actually describe the situation on the ground. And those of us who have sort of a liking for him as a person and as an independent thinker are deeply distressed when all he does is mouth a defense of the indefensible. The whole war is indefensible. We're only there, contrary to the advice of the entire American intelligence community, there are 17 different intelligence agencies. They never agree on anything on this. They agreed. Iran does not pose a threat to the national security of the United States. Iran has not been developing a nuclear weapon for the past 20 years. Iran does not have the ability to develop a nuclear weapon. Trump just disregarded all that, believed the nonsense that was given to him by Prime Minister Netanyahu and David Barnea, then the head of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence. And JD Vance, to his credit, made these arguments - Iran is not a threat. Don't go into the war. It will not go well. Privately and with intellectual honesty, I believe made those arguments to the president.
Once the president decided to go into the war, he then became a cheerleader and now has lost the support of people like me that formerly admired his intellectual honesty. But to say it's not a war is absurd. To say it is defensible to attack a school and kill school girls, to attack a wedding and kill wedding goers. To purport to defend that at all is totally irrational and marks the person as just blinded by loyalty to a military posture doomed to failure. What is the goal of the American military in Iran?
Well, they gave a half dozen goals, none of which has been achieved. US has been humiliated. They should take their belongings and go home.
NIKKI- Do you think Trump regrets making that decision to get involved?
JUDGE- I do think that Trump regrets it, but he's not known for public regret or a public apology and he's looking for an off-ramp and a lot of people are laboring mightily to find one that can give him some saving face. But the longer they wait, the less opportunities are available other than going home.
NIKKI- And because Trump, as you say, is a sort of person who won't take responsibility for any of his mistakes, he's putting all the blame on Iran, as well as JD Vance, who's blaming Iran for the rising gas prices. He says Iran's attacks on commercial ships are responsible for the rising costs of oil. Are these claims that sound believable to you? And are people buying it?
JUDGE- No. And no, they're not believable to me. And the American public is not buying it. Everyone, not everyone, most people recognize that the government failed, the American government failed to plan for what would happen in the Gulf of Hormuz.
Failed to take into account that military activity there would materially disrupt the flow of oil. Gasoline prices are still higher than they've been in the US in the past three years. Diesel higher than it's been in the past 5 years. Diesel affects the price of everything else. As you know in the US, our personal supplies and foods, food stuffs, things you buy at the supermarket are transported by truck and trucks are fueled by diesel. That the government failed to consider this is almost unthinkable. So what will Trump do? Probably blame and fire Hegseth. I mean that's his pattern. When things don't go well, he fires the people who are the public face of the things that have not gone well.
NIKKI- Let's talk a little bit more about Trump and his reputation. He's been accused of trying to erode confidence in the international legal order. That's a statement coming from the current and former presidents of the ICC. Would you agree with that statement?
JUDGE- Yes. When the president told the New York Times in a now infamous interview, I think it's probably about seven or eight months old, that his own morality is what guides him. He doesn't feel bound by international law. For heaven's sakes, the US wrote international law. The US put it into treaties. The US compelled other countries to sign these treaties. Now, we have a president who is, I'll use a British phrase, thumbing his nose, at these, these very, treaties. Now some have said there's no such thing as the rule of law. It's whatever the US wants. There is evidence for that. But to the extent that there are rules and there are sanctions for violating the rules, that system existed until Donald Trump became president. Now, he can kidnap the head of state of another country, Venezuela. He can treat Canada as if it's a satellite. He can abrogate a treaty with South Korea. He can do all of these things and presumably in his own mind get away with it. Well, there are consequences to this and the consequences are nobody trusts you, nobody believes you, nobody wants you to have all of this power much longer.
NIKKI- Why do you think Trump is so hell-bent on sanctioning these ICC judges and officials? Why distance his country from the institution which the US is not a party to?
JUDGE- I think he is probably being advised by people that some US officials who may end up in a country where the ICC is recognized may be seized by the ICC. I think he's also terrified that that will happen to Netanyahu.
So rather than do the right thing which is to stop funding genocide both in Gaza, in the West Bank, in Lebanon, to stop fighting Netanyahu's war in Iran, he goes after that which might neutralize Netanyahu, which is the ICC.
NIKKI- And the current head of the ICC, a Japanese jurist Tomoko Akane has been sanctioned by the US State Department. She's now unable to access any or many financial services.
Meanwhile, we have someone like the head of state of Syria, former terrorist, formerly known as Mr. al-Julani, now Ahmad al-Sharaa, flashing around his Visa card, paying for coffees. How fair is this situation? How surreal is this situation?
JUDGE- Goes back to what we said earlier. There really is no international law. It's whatever the US wants.
Your most famous 20th century countryman once said, I think it was Churchill, maybe I'm wrong, there are no lasting friendships. There are no lasting enmities. There were only lasting interests. So 10 years ago, 15 years ago was in the US interest to lock Julani up without trial and to keep him there. Now it's in US interest to get him a Brooks Brother's suit and to trim his beard and give him a Visa card. It's absurd. If there's any hallmark of the Trump foreign policy, it is there's no value judgment. There's no morality.
It's whatever Trump believes he wants at the moment.
NIKKI- Absolute pleasure speaking to you today. I wish we had longer together.
JUDGE- Pleasure. NIKKI- Enjoy your time in Moscow. We've been speaking to host of Judging Freedom podcast, former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano. Thank you very much.
JUDGE- Thank you, Nikki.
Leave a comment! This is a re-direct to my Substack page.
Return to Limits to Progress Main Page
If you would like to send a donation, please send an Interac eTransfer to email address below. Thank you!
©2026 Kathleen McCroskey
Send your e-mail comments and questions to: