Judging Freedom - Prof. Glenn Diesen : How the Hungarian Election Will Effect Europe

Episode Date: April 22, 2026

Prof. Glenn Diesen : How the Hungarian Election Will Effect EuropeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Undeclared wars are commonplace. Pragically, our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression with no complaints from the American people. Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government. To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected. What if sometimes to love your country you had to alter or abolish the government? Jefferson was right? What if that government is best which governs least? What if it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong? What if it is better to perish fighting for freedom than to live

as a slave? What if freedom's greatest hour of danger is now? Hi everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, April 22nd, 22nd, 26, Professor Glenn Deeson joins us now. Professor Deeson, thank you, my dear friend. Thanks for accommodating my schedule. I want to talk to you, A, about the Hungarian election and the EU and Europe without Prime Minister Orban, and B, the general state of relations between Europe and Russia, whether it's in light of Ukraine or in light of Iran. But before we get there, our your fellow European who comments to us on all things European, Gilbert Doctoro, tells us that President Putin's standing amongst officials in the Kremlin, Russian elites,

and even average folks has sunk rather low because of the duration of the special military operation and some of its domestic consequences like the interruptions with the internet. Do you have any thoughts or observations to make on that? No, well, I think there's something to that, that there is an interest in getting this

war over with. And the war is, well, the war that Putin has been pursuing is this gradual war of attrition, where you slowly bleed out the enemy's forces before

they eventually collapse. And this has become very long process because Zelensky has very, well, I guess, fierce recruitment program where he drags people off the street. And the political West has sent a lot of money and weapons. So it's been going on for four years now. And the Russians have also taken a lot of losses. So for this reason, there's many who would like to see a quick end to it. So why fight with one arm tied behind their back? The argument is that there should be much more brutal, such as the United States, have been perhaps in places like Iran.

But also another lesson from Iran would be that Russia should also not have let its deterrent fall or collapse. Because all along the war over the past four years, every time the West stepped over another red line, that is, you know, first they weren't going to send any tanks, they weren't going to send Haemars, they weren't going to send artillery. As remember Biden said, F-16s meant World War III. Well, the Russians always face the dilemma. Do you retaliate against NATO and risk World War III, or do you just let it go and continue the war of attrition?

Well, every time they just failed to go up that escalation ladder with NATO, and as a result, NATO were more and more emboldened to the point now that no one in Europe anymore respects any more Russian deterrence, and they seem prepared to go to war with Russia because it seems so overly predictable. So to summarize it, a lot of people in Russia now are putting a great deal of pressure on President Putin to take a more hard line against Europe. And this will probably only increase more because as the US is pulling back away from Europe, trying to outsource it and focuses on the Middle East, this has two effects. One, the Europeans now have to escalate and you see to make up for the American absence.

and you see this already, sending more and more drones and obviously also providing the intelligence, and this is creating some big problems for Russia, which is having a lot of its refineries destroyed now. And so this regard it has to retaliate. And on the other aspect is that the US isn't there anymore really to protect Europeans. So if Russia would retaliate now, it likely wouldn't join the Americans. So there's great pressure now for Putin to, you know,

to step it up and essentially take the gloves off and going much harder. So again, it would be more unpredictable then. And Putin tends to seem very risk averse in most of his policies. Is this pressure across the board, that is, is it from the public? Is it from the elites, academics and oligarchs? Is it from fellow officials in the Kremlin? Well, I'm not sure what the people are saying in the Kremlin. They're not informing me, but from what I understand, it's not just among the public and the media.

There's also pressure among the political class as well that let's get the war over with. Because not only have the losses of four years been painful, but the economic problems can begin to ramp up and there's a lot of unknown variables. Only a few weeks ago, you know, the world looked very different now that the US has attacked Iran. You never know what's going to happen tomorrow. So they're not going to be able to control all these variables. So many say it's time to get this war over with because Europeans are seemingly also preparing now for war with Russia. They're saying we have to keep the Ukrainians in the war for a few more years so we can get ready. So essentially it's not in Russia's interest to play the long game.

game here. They have an interest to put a quick end to this. But to do so, this is where the criticism comes against Putin, they're going to have to become much, much more aggressive. And again, it depends. I think a lot of it rides now on what's happening. There's going to be a big spring and early summer offensive by the Russians. If this doesn't fundamentally change the situation on the ground, then I think it's going to be very, I think Putin's going to be under even more pressure to have some fundamental changes to the strategy. Former Russian president, Dimitri Medvedev, who sort of plays bad cop to Putin's good cop, so to speak, said either yesterday or the day before, we know where the Ukrainian drones

are being manufactured in Germany, and those manufacturing plants are a fair game. Is that a legitimate threat that Chancellor Murs should take seriously? Would Putin actually attack munitions factories in Germany? Well, it's hard to say. This is not just the media of having a meeting from the defense ministry, which had listed the different production facilities which make the drones, which have developed for the sole purpose of fighting Russia. So no, I think, yeah, those threats should be taken quite literally.

And I think this is the direction that Russia is moving towards, that it will probably seek to do more tit-for-tat against the Europeans, similar to what the Iranians did. This has been the most unique thing or the most interesting thing, I think, in the Iran war, is that whatever the US has done, the Iranians are mirroring it, doing exactly the same. So this is a good source for deterrence because whatever you do to run, if they will do it back again, then that that deters. And the Russians, I think, would like to copy this.

But there are several steps the Russians can take before, you know, Resnix will begin to reign upon European cities. I think the first step would be perhaps do more covert attacks or destruction, sabotage within Europe. again sometimes you see only a few days ago there was I think a fire at a thermos power station in Romania like I'm not saying that this was Russia but I'm saying this kind of things happens in Europe I think it might be more of this happening it could be again I have no evidence to suggest it's the Russians just something I would suspect and if they escalate further then they can go into more direct attacks but I think Germany would possibly be the most likely target of Germany or Estonian for example because Germany is, well, the US used to be seen as the number one enemy, but

now that the US is stepping back and it's, well, reducing its involvement in Ukraine and trying to improve bilateral relations, Germany really stands out now as, yeah, the old enemy. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov expressed, a few days ago over Europe's militarization, increasing the percentage of its budgets devoted towards the military. At the same time, there seems to be some sort of a grouping of European nations. I think Norway is one of them to form some sort of a defensive alliance to replace or supplement NATO.

you know about this yeah well there's been some talks about creating an alternative NATO one without the United States because well it seems to be a mutual divorce going on the US is increasingly expressing its dissatisfaction with NATO and the partnership with the Europeans and the Europeans are also growing more concerned about the United States I mean a lot of this you know can be argued yes is a Trump's the Trump's language after he's gone. We can go back to the old Biden era,

but I'm not one of those people. I think that what we're seeing now has much deeper roots. It's essentially the establishment of a multipolar world. I don't think the interest of the United States and Europe will overlap anymore. So for this reason, there is an interest in Europe now to begin to have more autonomous military. I don't think that's very realistic either. I think the Europeans will probably, well, Americans have always been the pacifier in Europe. I don't think such a huge European club could function without the United States.

I think already you've seen the French arguing we shouldn't buy British weapons because they're not part of the EU. I think Mertz has argued a bit with Wunderlander in the European Union in terms of how to organize these things. So without the US leadership, I don't think it's going to work very well. But the overall trend is that the US has to make priorities, that is Western Hemisphere, East Asia. Europe simply is not one of those priorities. And Europe will have to learn to move out of Uncle Sam's basement and stand on their own legs. Sorry, on their own feet. But anyways, I think this is an overall trend.

I belong to the more pessimistic crowd, I guess. I don't think this can happen. They are arming, and that's the problem. Okay. Well, Mrs. against Russia. Sorry. Got it.

Will Mrs. von der Leyen get her wish and become the commander and chief of a European army? Well, it's a small club, and they, you know, it's,

you know, when we talk about in the EU, we have a European parliament, but it's not like other parliaments in the world. This EU parliament, it's, you know, it mirrors

the, the, the language of democracy, but the EU parliament doesn't actually initiate new laws. A lot of the power comes out of the European Commission, where von der Leyen is the president. And yeah, so, yeah, she has her own goals. I think her goals probably were at some point to be the next NATO Secretary-General. Now that that might not even happen, that might not be a NATO anymore, I think she would probably go for that position.

as leading this army but you know we can all just hope and pray that that doesn't happen because I think yeah she's some of the worst worst people we have in the EU system yes yes Lukashenko Prime Minister Yukashenko and Belarus does he play a role in any of this I mean could Gilbert doctor or suggested Russian troops could go through Belarus and they'll be very close to Kyiv. Yeah, well, that would be it has a very strategic

benefit to use Belarusian territory, which is why it was used as well in the initial invasion of Ukraine. If Russia goes into Belarus and go down south into Ukraine, they can cross the border where it's much, you know, it's less fortified. Also, you end up on the western side of the Nipur River and you can cut off a Kiev from from the West. So if the Russians are now going for Kiev and there's a possibility,

if that's the case, then it's likely or probable at least that Belarus could be used as launching point. I'm not sure if it's, I'm a bit skeptical because Lukashenko keeps making the point that Belarus is not part of this war and they're not, you know, They're unlikely to use their territory. And also if Belarus is put in to the war, they would form a logical step on NATO's, or at least the Europeans escalation ladder, that they might consider hitting in Belarus more directly, given, you know, if they did all the ways. All is a strategic function for the Russians as well. They can have their troops there because it's a no-go zone for the Ukrainians.

And so I'm a bit skeptical. I doubt it, but it's very likely that I could be wrong. The departure of Victor Orban from the Hungarian prime ministership and effectively from European politics, does this unleash a 90 billion euro loan from the EU to Ukraine? Yes, it appears so. I think they agreed on the basis of it, but the final decisions, if I'm not mistaken, will be done tomorrow on Thursday. But it appears that now that the EU was able to get rid of Orban, and I say the EU, because the EU has leaned very heavily into the politics of Hungary. And also they made very, well, overt threats against Hungary if they would reelect Orban.

Yeah, given that they've pushed him aside now, I think, yeah, this, well, sending this money to Ukraine is at least can be more likely. We still have, of course, Prime Minister Fizzo in Slovakia, who has also been very critical, but I'm not sure if he's able to stand up against the EU without the Hungarians. and all the replacement of Orban, who won the election, Peter Magiar. He's not what the EU probably hoped for, but he still probably will go for, yeah, to release this money to Ukraine because he's trying to do a less hardline position than his predecessor. But it doesn't look like it's going to be quite a pushover, which the EU was hoping for. So where is this money coming from? Is it coming from banks or is it coming from state treasuries?

And who thinks that Zelensky or his successor will be in a position to pay it back? Well, that's a good point because it's a loan. They say it's a 90 billion dollar loan. Right, it's a lot of money to borrow. No, they're not going to get the money back. I think that's something our governments tell their public to get some, yeah, get some public support for sending this money. But no, the money is not going to be paid back.

Ukraine is a very, very dire situation. Indeed, the EU has banked on defeating the Russians. And in their hopes that after Russia has been defeated, that all the money which has been already taken from Russia, that they don't have to be returned. And also all the loans which have been given to Ukraine would be able to be paid off by essentially Russian reparations. So this actually makes it harder for the Europeans to accept an end to the war because they already start dipping into the Russian money.

And no, the money is not coming back. That's going to be gone. And this is part of the reason why Orban was opposed to it. I mean, within the EU, there's no dissent. There's no acceptance of dissent. If Orban was pro-Hungarian, he was said, Hungary first. So getting along with Russia is, you know, is simply. because if you want security and you're in the central Europe, you can't ignore the security concerns of the largest state. If you want to have economic prosperity, you can't really isolate also the main energy provider of Europe either, and especially if your country landlocked like Hungary.

So being pro-Hungarian means you have to learn to get along with the Russians. But in Europe, we denounce anyone who wants to improve relations with Russia as being pro-Russian and a stooge for Putin. So be it Orban or Fidso in Slovakia or the recently elected will become the new prime minister of Bulgaria, Radev. They're all Putinists and studges for Putin because they pursue their national interest and that national interest in terms of security and economies to improve relations with Russia. but you know you had the same in america with trump in 2016 he took the advice from kissinger get along with russia and you know he was made into a what i call it uh yeah uh yeah anyways an agent of russia and in europe they still believe in this this russia gate conspiracy theory they're

still subscribed to it and anyone who kind of questions it you know they're also labeled and smeared so there's very little common sense and very little focus on national interest. How is the war in Iran viewed in Europe? Well, I think most would support regime change. The demonization of Iran is, I think, as strong in Europe as it is in the United States. And if the US had invited the Europeans, I think many would probably have joined in, especially the usual suspects like the British.

Or if the war went well, then they would also jump on. But given that they weren't invited and then the war started going very poorly, now they want to take a safe distance. And given that Trump has also been so openly critical of the Europeans also threatening to annex Greenland, it makes it much easy for them to take a step back and distance themselves a bit from this. Well, is Ukraine hurting for equipment and ammunition because American arms manufacturers

are sending everything to Israel and to the American troops in the Middle East? Yeah, definitely. And I think this is also a big part of the Iranian discussion in Europe, because the main obsession with the Europeans is everything is about Russia. They have convinced themselves that Russia is an existential threat who wants to restore the Soviet Union or Russian Empire. And for this reason, everything is seen through the prism of attempting to defeat Russia. And towards this end is a big problem, the war in Iran, because all, well, what they're

essentially saying in Europe now, all the weapons are being either delayed, the weapons delivery or simply diverted to the Middle East. And especially the not just missiles, but especially the interceptive missiles. So the air defenses is a big problem. and Selensky himself made a statement recently that the situation is bad as it can be. And, well, it's not unique to Europe. You see the same in East Asia. The U.S. has been pulling out a lot of air defenses there as well

because it has to be sent to the Middle East. And with this, you see a lot of the alliance systems beginning to unravel a bit as well. Because if you don't think, well, a lot of these countries, they built their entire security strategy on American. taken care of them and now that this seems that the unlimited power of America is actually limited um yeah it sparks a lot of discussions what do we do now how much longer can Zelensky last well it's hard to say I mean last because you have political splits within Ukraine which uh which could cause a crisis I mean there's a reason why they can't have elections in Ukraine

because well Zelensky wouldn't survive economically they have they're having massive problems as well. That's another problem with the Iran war. It's not just that Americans are running out of weapons, but this creates further economic problems for the Europeans. So the Europeans aren't really able to keep Ukraine afloat to the same extent the war before. But the most important aspect is probably the military. And they're running out of important weapons. They're having also the main challenge is not just the weapons, but the manpower. The recruitment becomes ever more brutal. They have this expression. busification, which means they just have this military driving around in this vans,

dragging people off the streets and out of their homes. So a lot of this is causing a lot of social instability. So I think that as Ukraine is being weakened further and further, the Russians have been building up a lot of new troops and preparing for a massive spring slash summer offensive. So I think, yeah, the problems for Ukraine are many. And this is why it seems quite irrational for those standing outside to try to understand why the Europeans, for example,

aren't even willing to pick up the phone and talk to Russia about European security architecture. But again, I would describe it as a mass psychosis now in Europe. There's no willingness to even talk to Russia. They all believe that before 2014, Russia apparently had no imperial ambitions. But after 2014, when we helped to topple the government in Ukraine, suddenly now it's an imperialist power because they responded by taking Crimea. So, no, I think it's very strange mood in Europe at the moment.

Are European countries deporting young Ukrainian. men who fled Ukraine to avoid the draft? Are they deporting them back to Ukraine so Zelensky's people can draft them? Well, they're moving in that direction, at least in this country where I am. In Norway, they have started to start to limit at least the refugees. They will accept at least those men in fighting age. But in Germany, they appear to be moving in a much stronger direction, that is, at least from the speech given by Mertz, where he has. Salensky came to visit where argued that you know all of this young Ukrainian men in fighting age they you know they should be home

protecting their country which is a very well it could make sense if you if you if you think everyone has the duty to defend your own country but when you look at the dynamics of how this war began it seems quite cynical because you know if you go back to 2014 the majority of Ukrainians did not support the unconstitutional coup which removed their democratically elected president. Most Ukrainians in 2019, that is 73%, voted for the peace platform of Zelensky, but the Western NGOs and the Western-trained right-wing forces, well, threatened Zelensky to reverse course and essentially joint forces with the nationalist. And since then, they sabotaged for seven years, the Minsk peace agreement,

the sabotaged Istanbul peace agreement and the boycott of diplomacy for the past four years. So given that NATO instigated this war in 2014, built up a Ukrainian proxy army, and has done everything they can to prevent peace, it seems a bit cynical now to begin to deport young Ukrainian men to die in the trenches. But this is all part of this all falls under the umbrella of pro-Ukrainian policies. We claim that this is all for the benefit of the Ukraine. But in my opinion, we're just using Ukrainians as a cannon fodder to weaken a strategic rival, as by the way, many leading American politicians have made very clear as well. Correct. Correct. The use of Ukraine as a battering ram with which to drive Vladimir Putin

from office. I think Mrs. Clinton might have actually used that phrase, not expecting it to have legs, as we say. Professor Deason, thank you very much. Thanks for allowing me to take you across the continent of these two wars. All the best you. We'll look forward to seeing you next time. Thank you. Great. Always good to be with you, Judge. Sure. And coming up at 3 o'clock, if you're watching us live in 32 minutes, the great Phil Geraldi, Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.