Judging Freedom - AMB. Chas Freeman: Trump and Angry Europe

Episode Date: February 25, 2025

AMB. Chas Freeman: Trump and Angry EuropeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, February 25th, 2025. Ambassador Charles Freeman will be with us in just a moment on Donald Trump and an angry Europe. But first, this markets are at an all time high. Euphoria has set in. The economy seems unstoppable, but the last administration has buried us so deep in debt and deficits. It's going to take a lot of digging to get us out of this hole. Are you prepared? Lear Capital specializes in helping people like me and you grow and protect our wealth with gold. Did you know that during Trump's last presidency, gold rose 54% to a record high? If that happens again, that puts gold at $4,200 an ounce in his next term. Don't wait. Do what I did. Call Lear at 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com for your free gold ownership kit and special report

$4,200 gold ahead. When you call, ask how you can also get up to $15,000 in bonus gold with a qualifying purchase. Call 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620, or go to learjudgenap.com and tell them the judge sent you. Ambassador Freeman, welcome here, my dear friend. Always a pleasure to chat with you. Yesterday, French President Emmanuel Macron spent a good part of the afternoon at the White House. On Thursday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer plans to do the same. We have some interesting clips of President Macron in a few minutes. But big picture, what leverage, if any, do the British or the French have over Donald Trump? Well, they've just shown they have some. They're about to have a meeting in Europe between the British and the EU to compose new methods of defending Europe without

the United States. There's always been talk about this, but now they seem serious. But more interesting, of course, Donald Trump is trying to foreclose on Ukraine and then pick up its assets. That's what this mineral deal looks like. And the Europeans have just made a counter offer. They said, hey, we'll we'll uh

accept a privileged position in exploiting your minerals in return for a partnership with you so uh the Europeans are looking for leverage they're looking for counters and of course we had the extraordinary scene yesterday at the United Nations Security Council, where our allies first voted against us and then abstained on a resolution that we supported along with China and Russia. So clearly, the world is undergoing a major realignment around the new policies of the Trump administration. I love your phrase, foreclosure on Ukraine, and I can't help but think that you came up with that in large measure because that's the way the president thinks. Everything is a deal. I want to buy and own and develop and sell Gaza. I want to be compensated with dirt, with earth,

with the minerals in the earth for the money Joe Biden gave Ukraine. Exactly. He's a real estate guy. He's a developer. He wants to build a Trump Tower and a Trump International Hotel in Gaza. And he'd probably like to do the same in Kiev. Well, here's President Macron yesterday actually attempting to contradict President Trump. President Trump saying that the Europeans loaned their money to Ukraine. Joe Biden gave American dollars to Ukraine. He's animated about the difference. But watch President Macron's reaction and watch President Trump's reaction when

he doesn't like to be touched by President Macron and he doesn't like to hear his guest in the White House challenge him in front of the press corps. Chris, cut number seven. Just so you understand, Europe is loaning the money to Ukraine. They get their money back. No, in fact, to be frank, we paid. We paid 60% of the total effort, and it was through, like the U.S., loans, guarantee, grants, and we provided real money, to be clear. We have 230 billion frozen assets in Europe, Russian assets, but this is not as a collateral of a loan because this is not our belonging.

So they are frozen. If at the end of the day in the negotiation we will have with Russia, they're ready to give it to us, super. It will be loaned at the end of the day, the negotiation we will have with Russia, they're ready to give it to us, super. It will be loaned at the end of the day and Russia will have paid for that. If you believe that, it's okay with me. I'm going to read a little bit of what Macron said because his English is imperfect. We have 230 billion frozen assets in Europe, Russian assets. But this is not collateral for a loan because this is not our belonging, meaning it's not ours. So they are frozen. If at the end of

the day in the negotiation we will have with Russia, we will have with Russia, they're ready to give it to us, super. It will be loaned at the end of the day and Russia would have to pay for that and then the president makes his sarcastic comment. What did you think? Well, I'm really speechless. This is our leader, our elected leader, basically basically purveying falsehoods, not accepting a straight statement of the truth, continuing to insist on his delusions and doing this in a childish manner. I'm very sorry to see this happen. I think the most important point, however,

is the one you made at the end, or Macron made at the end, and that is Europe is now talking about cutting its own deal with Russia without us. One good turn deserves another. We propose to do the same to Europe. The Europeans, now I've seen a number of statements by Europeans, prominent Europeans. The first, I think, was Antonio Costa, the president of the European Council, but he's been followed by others, including the newly elected chancellor in Germany, Mr. Metz, who all say now the United States is not interested in us anymore. They're leaving us on our own. And we have to come up with a new security architecture for Europe.

And that means we have to negotiate with the Russians. So this is kind of a mess from a diplomatic point of view, but it's very clear that we're headed for a rift with Europe. Is Europe in a state of chaos? In a sense, yes. But we have to go back on Ukraine to a fundamental fact, and that is China, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Hungary, and others have all made proposals for peace in Ukraine. Europe has not done that. The British, who are not in the EU anymore but very much part of the European scene,

have been insistent on a total victory for Ukraine, something which is utterly delusional and impossible. So when the United States reached out to Russia in the meeting in Riyadh between the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, and Mr. Trump's Special Envoy, Mr. Witkoff, and left out the europeans it had a perfect excuse europeans had not offered any idea of what they could support in terms of peace in fact the only meeting they had was one which discussed european troops as peacekeepers in ukraine a notion which is completely non-feasible. The Russians started this war, or I should say started the attack on Ukraine as the war itself began in 2014. They started this war precisely to prevent the presence of hostile forces

on Ukrainian territory aimed at them. And they're not going to accept that. So now people are talking about, well, if we need peacekeeping forces, they should be Chinese, Indian, they should be Brazilian, they should be non-European, they should be non-American, they should be from the so-called global south. But the Europeans are still in a state of shock, and they are coming to grips with the reality that for 80 years from the end of World War II in 1945 to the present, they have entrusted order in Europe to the United States, and they have not developed their own capacity to sustain an order on their own continent.

Now they have to. Enter this picture, Friedrich Merz, the new military resistance to the Russian incursion? The Russians are within weeks of triumph. Well, Germany is, the German political scene is composed of parties with one exception, the Bundes... Sorry. AFD? Yes. I'm trying to remember the name of the woman who's Wagenknecht, who organized it.

They didn't even get into the parliament, apparently. It was a Buddhist talk. So this is not the AFD of which you speak. No, no, no, no. No, it's a small party. And it formed around one woman, Ms. Wagenknecht. They are the only party in Germany which is in favor of peace. The Greens are ferociously belligerent.

The other parties are less so, but also committed to the war. But Mr. Merz, who is known for his transatlantic view, his strong support of the United States historically, has concluded that Russia has to do a deal with Russia. So this is a point of confusion. And we don't know, you know, what will happen. So he, the German policies on these issues are rather strange. He's going to invite Mr. Netanyahu to visit Germany and remain staunchly Zionist, even though there's world court and international criminal court condemnation of Mr. Netanyahu and a warrant out for his arrest. He's apparently going to enter

discussions with Russia as a supporter of the war against Russia. Okay. We'll see how long that lasts, but pay for it. No, that is not the German style. What is at the core of the European mentality about Russia? If you could put your finger on it? Is it a fear of invasion? Is it some ancient primordial, well, they're different from us? What is it? Well, there's always been European dislike of the Russians, fear of them. They're a huge country with an enormous territorial expanse. I think Churchill said Russia is never as strong as it appears but never as weak as we hope or words to that effect. But different Europeans have different attitudes. The Germans historically have recognized the need for Europe to have an organic relationship,

a cordial and cooperative relationship with Russia if Europe is to have peace and stability. The French of course under Napoleon invaded Russia, but under de Gaulle sought a partnership with Russia for a united Europe independent of the United States. Each country has its own view. The British seem to be particularly pathologically anti-Russian. Of course, we have at the other extreme, we have Hungary, which while it's wary of Russia, Mr. Orbán, the leader of Hungary, came to national prominence as an opponent of the Soviet occupation, but he's a realist and he understands that Hungary has to have a good relationship with Russia.

So we have many, many viewpoints. And this, of course, is the problem for Europe. Henry Kissinger's famous question, if I want to consult with Europe, what's the telephone number? Remains a big issue. You can't, the Europeans cannot put themselves together in a common position. And that's not strange. They are in a stage that doesn't even come up to the level of the Articles of Confederation in the early days of our country. 27 separate entities, people or countries, just can't reach a decisive conclusion. That's not unusual.

They have to reform their system of continent-wide governance if they are going to play the role that they have the potential to do and which they aspire to, which is an independent role in the world, no longer following the United States automatically, no longer following us, by the way, on China policy. There's a lot of talk now in Europe about Europe developing a different China policy, which no longer coincides with ours and which involves a lot more cooperation with China. And I would say to date, internationally, everything Mr. Trump has done and his cabinet have done has enthused the Russians and enthused the Chinese.

We are creating vacuums that they can fill. Thank you for the Sauer-Wagen connect. Yes, thank you, Chris. That is exactly who I was referring to. Right. So she apparently believes she won the seat and is going to challenge it. I don't know what the significance is of having one more person, one different person in the Bundestag. Well, under the German parliamentary rules, you cannot have a representation in the Bundestag if you have less than 5% of the national vote. And she apparently was at 4.97%. Oh, jeez. This is the answer.

But she is the only leader of a party in Germany that is anti-war. Right. Can NATO exist without the United States, Ambassador Freeman? No, not in anything that we would recognize. But I don't think the issue is the United States pulling out of NATO. I think the issue for the Europeans is European control of NATO, a European commander of NATO forces, with the United States playing a supportive role. Probably we are not, we Americans are not going to be willing to do that. We've been very unwilling to surrender control of our armed forces to anyone.

This was a major issue in World War I when we first intervened in Europe. And General Pershing, who was in charge of the American Expeditionary Forces was independent. The British tried very hard to place him under British command and we refused and we have always been sensitive on this issue. But European security architecture needs to be revised. And the Europeans, I think, have a sensible position, some of them, which is that you look at Ukraine. Ukraine needs security guarantees. But the most important security guarantee for Ukraine

is a Russian commitment not to invade it. And how can you construct a bargain that gives credibility to such a Russian commitment is the real question. I don't think Russia wants to control Ukraine other than the Russian-speaking areas of Ukraine, which it originally was prepared in the Minsk Accords to leave as part of Ukraine, but which it is no longer due. So this is the question. What are the political arrangements, not European or American troops in Ukraine,

that could guarantee a neutral, independent status for Ukraine and allow it to regrow a democracy and deal with corruption and become a prosperous, independent bridge and buffer between Europe and Russia. Here's someone with which you and I generally disagree. I'll be anxious to hear your thoughts on this. This is John Bolton, President Trump's former National Security Advisor, who had a major falling out with him, personal and ideological. But here he is yesterday talking about the United States, NATO, President Macron, and Prime Minister Starmer. Chris, cut number eight. I don't think that Macron will succeed. Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, is coming this week as well. I don't think he'll succeed. I think we are now as close to Russia as an ally we've ever been in a hostile environment. It's a huge embarrassment. But I think most significant of all is that vote in the UN today was a clear marker we are on the

path out of NATO. The last line is what I, well, comment as you see fit, but the last line is what I am anxious to hear your thoughts on. Well, this has been an aspiration of President Trump, and it reflects the reality that I mentioned earlier, that, you know, the fact 80 years have ended, have passed since the end of World War II. President Eisenhower in the 1950s said that if we were not out of Europe, didn't have our troops out of Europe, this would be a mistake. We assumed responsibility for the protection of countries that are wealthy, that have a great martial tradition, that spend four times as much or did spend four times as much when this war in Ukraine broke out than the Russians do. And our presence has allowed the Europeans to coast along, not making themselves more than the sum of the parts,

quite less than the sum of the parts. So I think John Bolton in this case is probably correct. I don't agree with his statement that we're in an alliance with Russia, that is nonsense. An alliance is a mutual defense commitment, and that is not what is happening. But what is happening is something important. And that is, first, the United States, after wasting four years under Biden, is finally talking to the Russians. That's important. You can't influence people if you don't listen to them. We're listening. Second, the United States is recognizing reality. And the reality is that Russia has taken a significant part of Ukraine,

and it is in a position to impose terms. So when people talk about giveaways to Russia, that's nonsense. We can't get back at the negotiating table what we've lost, we, the collective West, on the battlefield. And finally, Ukraine is on the ropes. It's not winning, as our mainstream media have been suggesting. Russia is not running out of munitions or soldiers. The casualty figures that have been published in our press about the Russians are incredibly inflated Ukrainian estimates produced for propaganda purposes. There are never any realistic accounts of Ukrainian casualties,

which it appears have been vastly larger than the Russian casualties in number in a country that is only a fraction of the size, about a fifth of the size of Russia in terms of population. So you have to give the new administration, the Trump administration, credit for realism in this regard. Whether it's appropriate to treat Ukraine as a real estate deal is an entirely different question. But I noticed Mr. Bolton didn't raise that one. I'm sure if anybody in the White House is watching, and we know that sometimes they do watch Judging Freedom, Ambassador Charles Freeman's phrase, the foreclosure on Ukraine, will make its way to the Oval Office. Before we go, I would like to pick your brain just for a minute or two on Israel and Gaza. Do you think Prime Minister Netanyahu is attempting to undermine the ceasefire,

notwithstanding what Trump has said personally and notwithstanding what the American emissary without portfolio, Steve Witkoff, has said? Absolutely. Netanyahu has always insisted that he should have the right to renew the war of annihilation against the Palestinians whenever he chose. And he's now manufacturing excuses for that. So we have, you know, a mistaken body returned,

apparently killed by Israeli bombing of Gaza, followed up by the correct body, a mistake on Hamas's part, clearly. And this is subject to accusations that this was a cynical deceit by Hamas. No, we have the continued violation of the so-called ceasefire by Israeli forces. We have continued statements about resettling Gaza, now reinforced by the Trump position that Gaza should be ethnically cleansed and redeveloped as a Riviera. And it's very clear that Netanyahu fully intends to resume the killing in Gaza whenever he chooses. In the meantime, however, he's ordered an intensification of ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. We have the defense minister, Mr. Katz, saying that the 40,000 or so Palestinians who've been driven from refugee camp there

will never return. This is a repeat of 1948 and the so-called Nakba when Israel expelled 750,000 Palestinians from their homeland. So, yes, I don't think there's any doubt. And I'm sorry to say that it appears that the Trump administration is complicit in this. So Steve Witkoff, again, without portfolio, meaning he's not an employee of the government,

he hasn't been confirmed by the Senate, he's the president's friend and emissary, who apparently is a hard-nosed New York City self-made billionaire development style person who is a tough negotiator and admired by the president, has said, we'll play the clips for you in a minute, the United States wants to extend the ceasefire no matter what Netanyahu wants. Then he said, to me, the inexplicable. I don't know why he would even say this. We want Hamas to leave Gaza. So Chris, play five and six back to back, please. We have to get an extension of phase one. And so I'll be going into the region this week, probably Wednesday, to negotiate that. And we're hopeful that we have the proper time to finish off, to begin phase two and finish it off

and get more hostages released and move the discussion forward. The May 27th protocol agreement signed last May 27th sets forth that the phase two negotiation is much about two things. A, a permanent ceasefire, a cessation of all violence. And in addition to that, the fact that Hamas cannot be allowed to come back into the government. And I think the way you square that circle is that Hamas has to go. They've got to leave.

And we're going to, the negotiation will be around that. I would say physically, that's correct. Where would they go? Has any country offered to take them in? Well, I think the devil is in the details. And we've had a lot of discussions around it. I'm not at liberty to have that specific discussion today, but we've got some ideas. Status of Hamas's heart in Gaza is hardly a detail.

It's a fundamental. But what do you think? I mean, the Israelis attempted to destroy Gaza, and they couldn't get rid of Hamas. Right. And it's notable that Hamas does not insist on being part of the government in Gaza. It's said it's prepared to step aside now what it has not yielded on the battlefield. So really, Hamas is in Israeli parlance and perhaps in Mr. Witkoff's as well, a synonym for Palestinian nationalism and self-determination. The idea is that...

A natural, fundamental, legal right. Yes. And it's certainly a revered political right in our country. I mean, we determined our own future in relation to the British by insisting on self-determination. And that has always been a principle not always respected. We did not respect the self-determination of the Confederacy when it attempted to break the Union into pieces.

But this is a revered principle in international law and practice. And Hamas has the support of the great bulk of the world. You know, it is demonized in our country. And of course, the Israelis regard it as a mortal enemy and malign it. But it is seen internationally as epitomizing, as encapsulating Palestinian nationalism. So when you say you get rid of Hamas, you mean you want to have a subjugated Palestinian population. Well, the Palestinians have shown pretty definitively over the course of the last 75 years

that they are not prepared to be subjugated. And they're certainly not prepared to leave their homeland. Ambassador Freeman, a most stimulating and deeply informative conversation for which I am grateful. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. These Tuesday mornings are very enlightening, and I look forward already to

seeing you next week. Well, I apologize to Sarah Wagenknecht for not remembering her first name. You're forgiven, I'm sure. Thank you, Ambassador. All the best. Bye-bye. Bye. Coming up later today at 10.30 this morning, Professor Jeffrey Sachs at two o'clock this afternoon, Matt Ho, and at three o'clock this afternoon, Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.