Judging Freedom - Prof. Glenn Diesen: Is Europe Preparing for War?

Episode Date: May 14, 2025

Prof. Glenn Diesen: Is Europe Preparing for War?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

you Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, May 14th, 2025. Professor Glenn Deason joins us now. Professor, a pleasure as always, my dear friend. Thank you very much for joining us. I wanna spend some time with you talking about Europe and its real or imagined fears of war and its preparation for war.

But before we do to the relevant issues that are happening as we speak, what is your take on President Trump's trip to the Middle East and his visits to Qatar and Saudi Arabia? No, I think he still hopes to be a president of peace, to bring the region together. It doesn't necessarily seem always that this is an intention given his very aggressive

posture that is threatening some ethnic cleansing and of course bombing Yemen. But he sees this as being his main tactic that is negotiation through strength and some strategic ambiguity. But I think this is the main thing he's going for and also to try to reorganize the region a bit towards the United States. He did have some interesting points. He picked up on a lot of the concerns of the past decades of humanitarian interventionism, foreign nation building, and effectively argued that distancing himself from this universalism and calling for distinctiveness of civilizations and cultures. I mean, he effectively condemned the behavior of President George W. Bush with the wars

in Afghanistan and Iraq, supposedly, that Woodrow Wilson like to bring democracy to other countries. Does it matter to the Europeans, the personal background of the people he's been meeting with? I mean, Mohammed bin Salman has been found by the American intelligence community to have ordered the slaughter and dismemberment while still living of a Washington Post reporter. And Al Jelani, according to Scott Ritter and our other colleagues, A, killed Americans with his bare hands and B, is still killing Alawites and Christians in Syria. Do these things matter to Europeans or do they put all that behind them?

Or is there no European consensus on this? Well, I think you're correct on both of these issues. It's hard to speak of European consensus these days given that there's some deep fragmentation going on. But overall there's also a sense of panic now in Europe. There's great concern. So everything of values and principles is not prioritized at the moment. So it's very hard for the Europeans to denounce Trump for any of this because the Europeans also go to visit Jolani. Keep in mind that when you mentioned the killing of the Alawites, when this happened,

the EU went out on Twitter and blamed the Alawites for provoking it. So it's not, yeah, this is not much of a lot of court. One of the European countries, correct me, I think it was France, was the first to recognize out Jolani as the legitimate head of a legitimate government in a country that we destroyed, Syria. It all happened kind of quick as well. Keep in mind that the bounties on Jolani's head were still in place by the time. Right, the Marco Rubio State Department, Donald Trump's State Department, until a month ago had a 10 million dollar bounty on this guy's head. Now he's cozying up with the president in a palace in Riyadh. Yeah, well this is my point. I think all those liberal democratic values and principles,

I think now it's considered a luxury which they no longer can prioritize as there's other considerations. Indeed, after the toppling by Jolani, one of the key issues the Europeans were going for was seeking to support or push Jolani to kick out the Russians that is from the military bases. So this was kind of the priority. So everything these days is back to zero sum geopolitics. So I don't see anyone really at this point in time prioritizing yeah value we're looking at values but even principles are just not working without

AIDA. Are the Russians still in Syria? Do they still have a naval base somewhere or are they completely gone? Has Putin given up the ghost on Syria for now? Well, Jalani wants Assad extradited, sent back to Syria. For me, it seems very doubtful that Russia would actually accept this, that is to actually send Assad back, it would be almost impossible for them to do it, it would be a humiliation on the international stage. But, so, no, no, but I think this is what they're pressuring, but I don't see it going anywhere, to be honest. I think they've given up, a bit like Iran be honest. I think they've given up a bit like Iran to be honest. They've given a little bit up on the whole Syrian project and to be honest I think this is more the western problem now because a lot of the campaign against Assad,

again it was an anti-Assad alliance once Assad was toppled. What do the Turks, the Israelis, the United States, again, Jilani and the jihadists, what do all these regional actors really have in common? I think there will be more fragmentation, but of course there is a problem for the Russian troops which remain. There's some reports that there's a lack of access to food, drinks, but they're still pulling out some of their troops. Were the Israelis, I haven't seen this in public, but just trying to extrapolate the way I believe Prime Minister Netanyahu thinks, were the Israelis disappointed, bitterly so, at the lifting of sanctions on Syria?

Yeah, this is, well again, this is an interesting move because usually the United States, also by extension the Europeans, tend to fall in line with what Israel demands. But on this issue, it appears that, you know, they went ahead and prioritized the removal of sanctions despite Israel's opposition. So again, there's a desire to make sure that whoever is in power in Syria becomes loyal to the West. Now, you know, this is not quite unique. We often create these myths or stories about

leading the free world and all, but throughout the Cold War alone, there's been so many cases of Western countries, and I guess primarily the United States, toppling democratically elected leaders in order to install dictatorships as long as they're loyal to Washington and the Europeans. So it's not really that big of a deviation from what's happened throughout history. Is there a general feeling in Europe over this $400 million gift that the Qataris want to make ultimately to Donald Trump himself. I know now it says it's going to go to the Defense Department and then when he leaves office in three and a half years it'll go to his library foundation but as a practical matter it's a gift to him. Nobody else is going to have it and he will control the library foundation. How do the Europeans feel about something like this?

Or stated differently, do the Qataris give away this kind of cash or something of this value and don't expect anything in return? Well, I think the key word there, which I was going to comment on, was gift. I don't think there are any gifts in at least great power politics. The Qataris obviously buying goodwill. Again, this is not a new thing either. The Clintons are the Clinton Foundation. There is all way to many ways to reach the politicians now. So of course, this is buying off Trump.

Again, of course, it's very transactional, which is why the you see the approach it takes to also allies that they should pay for their security. This was kind of the idea behind the minerals deal with the Ukrainians. So I think there's a general understanding that you make deals with the United States and perhaps more directly with Trump and you buy some goodwill. I think maybe Trump is more blatant than others with this. But again, it's not a new thing. It's something you see. It's kind of ironic that the gear in the plane insisted upon by the Secret Service and the Defense Department will cost about a billion dollars and will take about two to two and a half years. He may not even get to use it while he's president. If he does, it'll be at the tail end of his term. Okay, I get that and I appreciate that understanding.

In the last week, Polish President Tusk, French President Macron, British Prime Minister Stammer and German Chancellor Kurtz all took a trip to Kiev. The trip coincided with the Russian, should have been European, should have been worldwide, but appears just that it was in Moscow. You can tell me why. A celebration of the end of World War II in Europe. the end of World War II in Europe. What are the four of them trying to accomplish or demonstrate by this trip to Kiev coinciding with the three-day celebration in Moscow? Well, I think they wanted to take some, obviously, some attention away from this, the celebrations, but it's also an effort by the Europeans to still seem relevant. Keep in mind that the Europeans are quite worried that they've been excluded from the negotiations that is peace in Ukraine now will be decided

primarily in Moscow and in Washington. So they want a greater role, but of course there's some problems. Even though they want to greater role, but of course there's some problems. Even though they want to be more involved in Ukraine, nobody wants to pick up the phone and call Moscow. So there's too many contradictions. Furthermore, they're not really willing to concede anything. So I think they got stuck in this narrative of unprovoked invasions. So they can't really talk to the opponent. They can't really deviate from the push towards war. And even though they want to be part of negotiations,

they don't really want actually any negotiations. The main objective of this, of course, is to pull the United States into the war. But there's also concerns that they're very divided, they don't have a role. So this, at least my interpretation of this is to show that the Europeans, the stress standing strong, they're standing together and they're still showing their full support for Ukraine. Again, the problem behind this is a great facade and this is a very European thing. Whenever there's a strong sentiment about something, they come together to take the group picture and send a strong message in a stern letter. But none of this really mean that much anymore because, as Macron said only a few days ago on French TV,

they don't have any more weapons to send. They sent what they had and what remains is the need for drone security. So it is a weird thing to watch, to issue threats and ultimatums to Russia when Russia is actually winning. But I think this is the compensation, a lot of chest beating as there's nothing else, no other cards to play. Here's a weird thing to watch. Prime Minister Starmer touting, I don't know why they called it this. It was one of George Bush's biggest blunders calling the people who invaded Afghanistan

and Iraq the Coalition of the Willing. But anyway, they've chosen that phrase. Here's Prime Minister Stammer on all of this just three days ago, cut number three. No more ifs and buts, no more conditions and delays. Putin didn't need conditions when he wanted a ceasefire to have a parade, and he doesn't need them now.

Ukraine has shown the willingness to engage again and again, but again and again Putin has refused. So we are clear, all five leaders here, all the leaders of the meeting we just had with the coalition of the willing, an unconditional ceasefire, rejecting Putin's conditions and clear that if he turns his back on peace, we will respond. Respond with what? I mean, isn't this like a mouse threatening an elephant? Yeah, very much so. But it's also it's not being's also being very dishonest as well.

Again, all this word sounds very nice, unconditional ceasefire. All unconditional means is that they don't want to talk about a political settlement. Now, you can't have a durable ceasefire if you don't actually address the underlying causes. So they demonize the Russians for setting conditions, but in any conflict resolution, you do look for solutions.

Now, and again, this idea that we need an unconditional ceasefire, again, I would love to see a ceasefire, but it has to be, but they have to put forward some proposal. They can't even call the Russians to set up a format, well, what is the purpose of the ceasefire? Who will monitor these kind of things? And so it looks to me a bit like a narrative control because suddenly now we have to have a ceasefire now,

unconditional, otherwise suddenly it's the Russians who refuse to talk, not us. But again, this comes after three years of not talking to the Russians, still not talking to the Russians. You anticipated my next question. Why don't they just pick up the phone and call Foreign Minister Lavrov, whose English is as good as any of theirs, and start a dialogue? Or is this the Joe Biden, Antony Blinken mindset that the Russians are so evil, we won't even talk to them?

No, it's exactly that. And it's also the idea that we have to isolate the Russians. But these are two mutually exclusive things. You can't say that we're ready for a ceasefire and start talks, but we won't talk to them before the ceasefire begins. And this is the main divisions now in order to have an actual talk. That is the Russians say, we don't want a ceasefire before we address the underlying causes because they did this with the Minsk agreement. And indeed, the Europeans have already said they won't accept any of the terms the Russians have

said. The German foreign minister even said that the NATO expansion was, you know, Ukraine's path to NATO was irreversible. They're not even going to discuss the core of any security, any peace agreement. But at the same time, they don't want to ceasefire. So for the Russians, they ask, well, why do you want to ceasefire if you refuse to talk about the political settlement? And the Europeans are quite open. They want to send more weapons into Ukraine because they see the front lines collapsing. The British are talking about, you know, sending their jets in and having troops on the ground. So it's seen as an effort to prolong the war instead of continuing it.

And this is the main, I think, the main division. So what comes first, political settlement or the ceasefire? Now, there could be an avenue for convincing the Russians to accept a ceasefire, but then at least have an agenda of what should be done during the ceasefire. Are we going to sit down convincing the Russians to accept a ceasefire, but then at least have an agenda of what should be done during the ceasefire. Are we going to sit down with the Russians? Are we going to talk about mutual expectations and demand? But as you said, they won't even call. So you have to ask whether or not they're being genuine. Indeed, if you want, you can ask why does Zelensky after three years of refusing to talk to the Russians

now suddenly say, well, I want to meet Putin. I'll meet him now on Thursday in Istanbul. I will only talk to him. And this is the only thing. You know, this isn't possible. You can't organize a presidential meeting, you know, security issues, what agenda, what are they going to talk about? How would this be organized in two, three days? It's not going to happen. So it's all theater. Now, of course, the European newspapers can print Zelensky takes the first step. He pushed for peace. Putin shows that he wasn't really interested in peace after all. So again, it's narrative control, I think. It's a great shame because people continue to die in huge, huge numbers on the front line. Here's President Putin's rather candid response to a lot of this. He even refers to these

five. By the way, who's the fifth? So there's Stammer, Macron, Tusk and Mertz. Who else was there? Von der Leyen? No. That's a good question. Yeah, all right. Well, maybe we'll come up with it. But whoever they were, I've never heard Putin say this. And I'm assuming the translation is accurate. He calls them idiots. Here he is yesterday. Cut number five. We must not be afraid. Anyone who starts to get scared will lose everything right away But it's absolutely necessary to understand what might happen and we need to be ready for any actions

from our possible Future adversaries they do many things to their own detriment. It seems like well, they definitely won't do this or That because it harms them but they do it anyway idiots please excuse me but well what else can you say their economies the leading economies of the world are going into recession they fall into recession just to harm us it's like buying a ticket and not taking the trip just despite the conductor what is that supposed to be? To a large extent, thanks to the efforts of businesses and the energy of entrepreneurial work.

Russia's economy is demonstrating resilience and developing. There's no, let's start at the very end, Professor Deason. I don't think there's any dispute at all, but that Russia's economy is demonstrating resilience and is developing nicely. In fact, it's in a lot better shape. Again, correct me if we have a different understanding, more your field than mine. It's in much better shape now than it was before the West imposed their sanctions? Well, let me just say I think the fifth person is probably Zelensky who was referring to. No, I think the economic development is, no, it is something that they've been working on for a while. Again, this is what I find frustrating because I was arguing the first day of sanctions

that they wouldn't work. And the reason is because I used to work as a professor in Moscow in 2018, 19 and 20 on the issue of the development of the Russian economy because they were trying then to make their economy sanctions proof. That is they pursued more technological sovereignty. They tried to fill in key gaps in their supply chains by having some import substitutions. So often you saw that when the Europeans put sanctions on the Russians, it was areas which also hurt Europeans. When the Russians did it, it often had strategic focus, so they wanted to develop key strategic industries. For example,

the tech sector, they also wanted to develop agriculture, so in key areas where they could develop key, well, strong international competitiveness. So they've been working on this for quite some time. They've had very conservative fiscal policies, avoid taking on too much debt. So, overall, they've been preparing for this potential that they would end up in a conflict with the West. So, no, I think to some extent, they see themselves also liberating part of their economy from, well let's call them rent seekers in the West and they've been able to actually grow the economy quite well and it's not just that the economy is going up, you also see it throughout society that the standard of living is increasing many places as well and this is all happening while they're fighting a very expensive war and the West has thrown all

sanctions at them. So it is quite an interesting thing to see. What do you think we can expect in Istanbul? I mean are Putin and Zelensky literally going to be in the same room? I can't imagine they would. It's not how negotiations usually work. That is they started. It's not how negotiations usually work. They start at very different places. How you usually would do it is you have a negotiation team from both sides. They discuss, they flesh it out. Usually when you reached an agreement, you're ready to sign, this is when the leadership would come in. This is for many reasons. It's also not to create any political pressure that would result in the collapse of the negotiations to begin with. However, there could be a scenario that if of course Putin and Zelensky both met to shake each other's hands, being very symbolic,

let's at least start diplomacy again and talk. Again, I think this could be very positive. And again, I would applaud it, anything to get an end to all of this killing. However, if it's, I suspect that this is a political stunt. And if that's the case, which is likely is the case, I can't see why Putin, I can't imagine him actually showing up for this. We talk about political stunt. Could you imagine if the person standing between the two of them was Donald Trump? Would that be the political stunt of the ages? Well, as Trump said, after the big drama in the Oval Office, so this is good TV, at least,

I think that's how it could be interpreted as. Whatever you think of him him he does know good tv he puts on a good show not always appropriate for international politics but he knows how to draw a crowd right professor deez and always a pleasure my dear friend thank you very much thanks for your thoughts thanks for all your writings and thanks for letting me pick your very fertile brain. We'll look forward to doing it again next week my friend Thank you anytime judge. Of course. Thank you So normally I would just sign off and tell you who's coming up next and I'll do that in a minute But I earlier this week some of our guests mentioned this allegation of the use of

Some of our guests mentioned this allegation of the use of illegal controlled dangerous substances on a train by Prime Minister Stammer, Chancellor Mertz and President Macron. I must tell you that I and my team and this show reject those allegations. In fact, though they are rampant in social media, though they appear to be generally believed by our friends in Russia, they have been totally debunked and we debunk them and dissociate ourselves from them. Having said that, at three o'clock today, Bill Giraldi with some new information, who do you think was on the Air Force One with Donald Trump that

also works for Prime Minister Netanyahu? And at 4 o'clock, Scott Horton, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. You