Judging Freedom - AMB. Chas Freeman : Is Trump Running US Foreign Policy?

Episode Date: August 12, 2025

AMB. Chas Freeman : Is Trump Running US Foreign Policy?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

You know what doesn't belong in your epic summer plans? Getting burned by your old wireless bill. While you're planning beach trips, BBQs, and three-day weekends, your wireless bill should be the last thing holding you back. That's why millions have made the switch to MidMobil. With Mint, you can get the coverage and speed you're used to, but for way less money.

And for a limited time, MittMobil is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for $15 a month. So while your friends are sweating over data overages and surprise charges, you'll be chilling, literally, and financially. All plans come with high-speed, data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. This year, skip breaking the sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three-month

unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com slash john. That's mintmobile.com slash john. Use your own phone with any mint mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all of your existing contacts. Up front payment of $45 required equivalent to $15 a month. Limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow about 35 gigabyte on unlimited plan. Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details. Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judging Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, August 12, 2025. Ambassador, Chas Freeman joins us now. Ambassador, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for

joining us. Don't mind my froggy voice. I feel better than I sound. I hear that. Thank you. I'm wondering if this Trump-Putin meeting is a bit of an inversion in this respect, all the diplomatic meetings that you were involved in. When the heads of state get together, that's usually the formal end result of much detail worked out by the Sherpas so that when the heads of state get together, they shake hands, they make public announcements, they take credit, but they knew what was going to happen before they got there. This is an inversion. I don't think the heads of state have any idea what's going to happen when they get there. Do you agree? Yeah, I think actually American diplomacy, professionalism that we developed over decades is a thing of

the past. What we've had is a process of working up to a summit, focused improbably for quite a long time on a ceasefire rather than a peace. What does seem to have happened is that finally the Trump administration, the president, and some of those around him, seemed to be listening to the Russians, and considering what might be required to bring this war to an end and to replace it with some sort of stable arrangement for Ukraine and Europe as all. So you're quite right. There are no clear indications of what has been decided and are what will be decided.

Usually, as you say, summits are ratifications of negotiations that have gone on in detail at a lower, more professional level. We really don't know what will happen. However, we're beginning to have some hints. It appears that the Trump administration has come to grips with the fact that Russia now holds the territory in Ukraine that it does, and that with the exception of that small portion of Ukrainian territory adjacent to the region of Russia that the Ukrainians attacked and occupied briefly, this is going to stay in Russian hands. So they're talking about swaps of territory, and President Zelensky has been adamantly against this, as indeed,

His supporters among the ultra-nationalist Western Ukrainian faction are, seems to have understood that he faces a choice of either going down with the ship or compromising. And so he's talking about the possibility of Russia holding on to some of the territory that it has seized. So we really don't know what it's going to happen. And the agenda appears to be more and more set by the Russians, not by us. Do you share the view of many of your colleagues on this show that if President Zelensky does agree to surrender Crimea and the four oblasts, which are now, for the most part, under the control of the Russian military, that he will not be long for the world?

Yes, I think that's correct, but it's equally true that if he doesn't accept whatever compromise President Trump and President Putin work out, he's also not long for this world because there will be a cutoff of at least American support and some European support. Europe is not united on this. Europe is in a spoiler position on this issue, but it, too, is beginning to talk more reasonably about recognizing the results on the battlefield. And here I just go back to your first question, if there is no diplomatic pursuit of a solution, then the solution must be on the battlefield. And there has been no diplomacy for four years under the Biden administration. We had an incompetent secretary of state who did not pursue a diplomatic solution with Russia, but it blocked one as best he could. The Trump administration, to its credit, has come to the conclusion that a diplomatic solution is required.

Why do they, you mention the EU, why do EU elites demonize Russia? I think there are all sorts of reasons for this. In the case of Great Britain, there's a long tradition of Russophobia that is deeply embedded in mass opinion. So it's politically advantageous to be anti-Russian. This is being used as an excuse to beef up the military industrial complexes in different countries, increased defense budgets and improve the American unreliability or perceived unreliability is driving that in the direction of greater self-reliance. But in fact, we're seeing a bit of military Keynesianism,

counter-cyclical spending driven by national security concerns rather than sound economic reasoning. So all these things come together. And then I think you cannot discount the impact of the amazingly intense information warfare that has accompanied the war in Ukraine. The Russians have been made to look like people with an ambition to conquer all of Europe, despite the fact that they clearly don't have the ability to do that. The fear of that is driving political decisions all over Europe.

If the United States, for whatever reason, completely turned off the spigot of military supplies to Ukraine, A, could that be compensated for from the Europeans? And B, whether compensated for or not, how much longer can Ukraine survive on the battlefield? Well, I don't know how much longer, but not very long, because the answer is the Europeans cannot. provide what the United States has been providing. They have apparently bought about a billion dollars worth of American weaponry for transfer to Ukraine. But as we've discussed before, American military stocks are stocks of weapons that are relevant to the sort of worker that's going on in Ukraine are at an all-time low. Certain weapon systems, for example, the THAAD, a high altitude interceptor for missile attack.

You know, we expended 25% of our inventory in the 12 days of the last Israeli-Iranian fight. So I don't think there's an answer even if the Europeans pony up to money. We don't have the production capacity to carry on very much longer. You're a former deputy secretary, of defense. How depleted is America's supply of weaponry that we normally keep for our

own needs? Well, I was Assistant Secretary of Defense, not for procurement, which is the relevant part of the Defense Department, but everything I read leads me to believe that we're in deep trouble we have expanded a great deal of our stockpile of many weapons systems and we don't have the production capacity to ramp up further production so we're not in a position many people you know look at the united states and they imagine that we're as we were in world war two capable of an enormous surge of production we're not and i should add to you I should add to this that our weapon systems, as we have seen in Ukraine, are often too complex, too prone to break down, too difficult to support, and far too expensive for a war like this. Well, there's no question by that they're expensive.

Who has the most to gain and who has the most to lose in Alaska on Friday? Well, the biggest loser, obviously, is President Zelensky, whatever happens, because he's essentially been cut out, and, you know, you see happy talk about perhaps he'll join the meeting and so forth. I suppose if there is a meeting of the minds between President Putin and Trump, that he could be invited to sacrifice himself on the altar of that. meeting of the mines by going to Alaska, but that is hardly in his interest. The United States, however, in a broader sense, regardless of what happens in Alaska, is coming to grips with the fact that we lost this proxy war with Russia. We did not win it. Russia emerges with a larger economy, a much stronger armed force, battle tested, and we'll gain, we'll achieve the objective

it set out to achieve, namely, the protection of the Russian-speaking minority in Ukraine, because a great deal of them will now be annexed to Russia with American recognition. And Ukraine, it's demonstrated that Ukraine cannot join NATO without bringing on punishment from Russia that makes that infeasible. And I think we're coming to the point where we're going to have to talk about a new security architecture for Europe, one in which Russia doesn't feel threatened by the West and the West doesn't feel threatened by Russia. But so far there have been no discussions at all of that. That is a conjecture on my part that we will reach a point where we address that Russian agenda. Do you think that President Trump views this negotiation as a real estate deal rather than what President Putin has demanded?

His demands have been consistent since the war started in February of 22. Well, I know that Stephen Ritkoff is a New York real estate guy. And this show. actually in the transactional nature of the discussions that have apparently taken place. It also shows in our president's behavior, which contradicts the principle that when you negotiate a transaction, you're also negotiating a relationship. I guess in New York real estate, you don't care whether you have a continuing relationship with whoever you're buying or selling property with. But that is not the case internationally. So, yes, in many ways, this does look like

an exchange of territory, you know, a swap of properties kind of arrangement. And that in itself is not going to produce peace. There needs to be broader agreement on the issue of the status of Ukraine in a reformed Europe. Well, you used the word exchange and the word swap? I mean, what would the Russians give up? That little chunk of territory that they took in northeastern Ukraine, phoomy and around there, they could easily give that up. They basically took that in pursuit of a buffer, some kind of demilitarized area that would protect their own territory, from being attacked by Ukraine. Part of the arrangement could indeed be

the demilitarization of that area and its return to Ukraine. Is the hold that American Zionists have on the American government based entirely on money or do you think there's a measure of blackmail in there? There is blackmail.

There is, also the issue of evangelical Christian endorsement of Zionism as a prelude to bringing on the apocalypse, the rapture. So there are ideological supports for Zionism among Americans. But for the American political elite, yes, it's mainly money, I think, and fear of the Zionist lobby. either funding an opponent in an election or depriving them of the support they require to run a campaign. And what do you think will happen if Netanyahu invades Gaza and destroys Gaza City? I'm really not sure. He's managed to pretty much unite the entire world against him, even the West, which has been subservient to Zionist interests

now is slapping him in the face with this intended recognition of Palestinian statehood of course that will not bring on actual statehood for the Palestinians it is a legal theoretical gesture not one that has with much effect in the real world his own people are beginning to rebel against this war I don't know how much longer he can remain in office.

Everyone seems to believe that the only reason he's doing what he's doing is to remain in office and stay out of the judicial proceedings against him for corruption and a likely jail general. Who actually controls American foreign policy? Is it Donald Trump? Is it the deep state? is it APEC and the Zionists? I mean, just look at the transformation of Trump ambassador

from promising to end the wars in 24 to 48 hours to becoming an arch neocon. Well, I wouldn't consider him an arch neocon. I think he's confused. I also think he's transactional. In the case of West Asia, the Levant, Israel, Alastan. It's very clear the Zionist lobby controls

American foreign policy and therefore Israel is. And what we're seeing there is an Israel first, not an America first policy. In other regions, we have a combination of petulance, for example, Brazil. We have the odd with disconnect just after Marco Rubiar, Secretary of State, issues

a directive to every uh diplomat american diplomat in the world not to voice any opinion on the outcome of elections or internal political developments in other countries out of respect for their sovereignty our president puts a 50 percent tariff on brazil um so to overturn uh court decisions to put sanctions on members of the Brazilian Supreme Court. And, of course, incidentally, raises the price of coffee for every American varies substantially because tariffs, as he seems to want to ignore, are import taxes paid by Americans, not by Brazilians.

Will the imposition of secondary tariffs for countries buying oil from Russia, notably China, will that affect the policy of those countries? Or will they just thumb their noses and say, the hell with you, Donald, we have bricks? I think they are thumbing their nose almost already. I note that the imposition of tariffs on China has been suspended for another 90 days because the Chinese, unlike everyone else, stood up to the United States and deprived us of products that we absolutely require, especially rare earths and magnets, which are essential for our defense industry. The others are in the process of conferring.

Look at what India has done in response. to this proposed secondary embargo of oil to it from Russia. Immediately after that announcement, its national security advisor flew to Moscow and met with Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin is scheduled to visit India, probably at the end of this month, maybe early next month, at the invitation of Narendra Modi. Miranda Modi and Vladimir Putin exchanged a telephone call. Narendra Modi is going to Shanghai, to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting where he will meet with Xi Jinping and others. The world is in motion against these moves by us, and we don't seem to have taken that possibility into account.

We seem to be like the chess player who has only an opening move and nothing beyond that. Do you think Trump understands economics 101? Does he understand the effect that these tariffs have on the lives of Americans and big picture, macro, these international relations, which you briefly just addressed? I wish I could cite evidence that he did understand, but he's acting as though he doesn't understand. He's following Peter Navarro and other crackpot theorists about how economics work. He's listening to Stephen Miller on many issues.

And he's destroying our reputation. We are burning bridges internationally, not building them. And we are agitating other countries that wanted to be our friend to become our opponents. to cooperate with each other against us, as I've just indicated in the case of India. Well, all right, Ambassador. Thank you very much for your time. I don't know how I sound, but my voice feels better now than it did 20 minutes ago when we started. I hope you have a speedy recovery.

Plenty, plenty of hot tea. Good idea. and maybe a bit of honey in the tea. Yes. Thank you, Ambassador. All the best. We'll look forward to seeing you next week. But then we'll know, theoretically, unless they're still up there, what happened in Alaska? Well, the question is,

is President Trump trying to try to sell Alaska back to Russia, I guess? Wouldn't put it past him. All the best, Ambassador. Thank you for your time. And coming up later today at 11 o'clock. O'clock, Colonel Bill Astor, a new guest for us, one that I think you'll like a lot. He's going to make an argument from his years in the military that the United States is a failing, flailing empire and getting worse. At 2 o'clock, Aaron Matte, at 3 o'clock, Colonel Karen Kutkowski, Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.

Thank you.