Judging Freedom - Prof. Glenn Diesen : Is the EU a Criminal Gang?

Episode Date: December 22, 2025

Prof. Glenn Diesen : Is the EU a Criminal Gang?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

New Year energy is all about resetting routines, feeling healthier, and starting fresh. Why not give your dog the same reset? From daily walks to better habits at home, our dogs are always right there with us. Ollie helps you start the new year with intention, beginning with your dog's bowl. With fresh, protein-packed meals crafted from real human-grade ingredients, your dog can start the year feeling their best, too. Choose from five recipes and get a personalized plan for your dog's needs. Meals arrive perfectly portioned with a scoop and storage container, so serving is fast and mess-free.

And with Ollie's in-app on-demand health screenings, tap real experts whenever you need peace of mind. Visit ollie.com slash crossover and use code crossover for 60% off your first box. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, December 22, 2025. Professor Glenn Deeson joins us now. Professor Deeson always a pleasure. I know it's Christmas time and holiday time. Thank you very much for joining us. We're going to go dark midday on Wednesday and then we'll be quiet for about 10 days unless something happens that requires that we come on air and address it. Hopefully that one. won't be the case. Before I talk to you about the EU and its crimes, and they seem to be increasing every time we turn around, I want to ask you a few questions about the United States and China. In the past two weeks, the following events occurred. The Trump administration

released its national security strategy, which says China is no longer an enemy. It's now an economic competitor. Yet last week, President Trump signed into law the national Defense Authorization Act, which delivers $11 billion worth of offensive missiles to Taiwan. And over the weekend, the United States Navy stopped and seized a Venezuelan oil tanker destined for the Panama Canal and ultimately to China. How do you think China will react to all that? I think, yeah, quite poorly, but I think the U.S. military approach, and I think there is a military approach, because seeing China's economic rivals, one thing, but if there's a concern

that the U.S. can't compete with China, perhaps because its economies become too financialized, perhaps because the Chinese have too much self-sufficiency, and they're able to scale everything, thus having an advantage in terms of implementation of AI and, well, all of the other advantages. I think there have always been incentive for the US to use military force when it's not able to compete. But I think the Chinese are seeing the US posture changing a bit because during the hegemonic era, when the US dominated, its power derives to large extent from being a security provider, that is to offer its deterrent to allies who align with the US. But in a time of decline, I think it's in the interest of the U.S. as Washington sees it,

to instead prepare some confrontation with other great powers to weaken them. But not directly, because you don't want to be directly in the war with China, but instead those allies who were previously under your umbrella would then instead be used more as vassals. So if you're going to fight the Russians, of course, you use Ukrainians. you're going to fight iraqis you use kurds if you're going to fight the chinese you want to use the taiwanese or japanese and so i think this is what they're getting more concerned about and regarding venzuela i think that's another part of this national security strategy which sees all of americas as america's backyard which means that the u.s will begin to patrol more who's

allowed to access and who's not allowed to access this region and the first step i think is to to cut off Russia and China, but particularly, most importantly, China from Venezuela. But the consequences of stealing an oil tanker with oil destined for China have got to be something. I mean, either the Navy didn't know what they were doing or Trump doesn't know what he's doing or both. I mean, they have to have thought about this. Our mutual friend and colleague Larry Johnson has suggested the Chinese will dump their American Treasury bonds. bonds, well, that'll force the Treasury to have to offer higher interest rates, which means the United States government then has to borrow more money to pay the interest on borrowed money,

truly an absurd economic paradigm, but that's what they do. I mean, how would the U.S. react? Well, we know from history when the Russians did this, the Chinese put offensive missiles in Havana. You know, of course, well, I think it's quite predictable how this. how the US would respond if the Chinese began to hijack and take American oil tankers? So, of course, this is something the Chinese can't afford not to do anything about. If they do nothing, then this becomes the new normal, that is, US or NATO can then begin to seize ships on the open sea from countries who it's in competition with.

Now, I think, though, the first, the Chinese, as you correctly pointed out, they don't want to go down the military rules. Of course, the obvious lesson learned for the Chinese is if they want to trade with the world, they need to supplement their trade ties with a powerful military to make sure that their trade connections are secure. Second, we'll also tie them closer to Russia for this purpose, that they have such a massive land border that there is no one who can disrupt their ties. But I think before going down the military route, of course, it's in the interest of China not to use its economic instruments of power.

And you just said that the Chinese have plenty. They can cut off, they can begin to dump their treasure bonds. They can dump the use of the US dollar in trade and the reserves. They can impose some very strong sanctions on the US, especially on any rare earth, such as antimony, which is needed for weapons, so they can essentially begin to demilitarized the United States. The good news is that they don't want to go down this road, but the bad news is it appears that the U.S. is pushing them to do exactly this, because either do this or just capitulate and accept that all your trade and economic power will depend on the goodwill

of Washington. I mean, is the U.S. stupid, or was this just a mistake to seize an enormous oil tank are destined for China. I think it's just this priority which has been set that Venezuela should be isolated. In the context of this regime change, I think they're taking risks and incurring costs, which haven't really thought through yet. Because again, this is knowing the Chinese, provoking the Russians, but also, you know, America's not full of, you know, this backwards banana republics as it was in the past.

You have big giants there, meet Brazil, for example. So it's, and many of these are not happy about this gunboat diplomacy, and that's what it is. You have the US Navy surrounding Venezuela, dictating who can trade with Venezuela, seizing or stealing its oil and tankers, and bombing. boats, which may or may not be part of some imaginary narco cartel. What is your take on the so-called negotiations between Kirill Demetriyev for the Russians and Steve Whitkoff and Jared Kushner for the Americans? I mean, we all know what Russia requires. We all know what those requirements are.

We also all know from as recently as Friday when he repeated them, President Putin is not going to change his mind. What do they talk about? Well, I have no good answers there, because I certainly do not know. I do know that both Dimitri and Witkoff, they're primarily businessmen, so they would like to see the opportunities for improving bilateral relations between Russia and the United States. Of course, this is an interest of both states. The Russians don't want excessive dependence on China. The US doesn't want Russia to have excessive dependence on China. Of course, this doesn't mean that the Russians would in any circumstance

ally against the Chinese, certainly not. But it's always good to have a diversify your economic ties. So there are a common interest, but the problem is you can't really advance the bilateral ties before we solve the Ukraine issue. And on the Ukraine issue, I don't see that much development Every time it seems that the United States and Russia is getting closer, that is to have a common understanding about to solve the underlying causes. And again, this is a key word everyone should have in the brain, the underlying causes. And the Russians have said what they consider to be the underlying causes. It's essentially the collapse of the European security order.

That is, after the Cold War, we decided let's create a Europe where everyone belongs except Russia. And this unavoidably, creating this Russia, Europe without Russia, unavoidably makes it a Europe against Russia. Because now we're going to have NATO military bases along the entire border of Russia. If you have the populations which are divided, such you have in Moldova, Ukraine or Georgia, then of course half the population have to be suppressed in order to make sure these countries lean towards the west.

So they're not going to accept any of this. So they're not going to, essentially what the Russia is asking for is a lot. to rethink all the mistakes we've done over the past 30 years. So the idea that Witkoff and Dimitriv can come and, hey, let's put together a nice trade deal and just trust me, trust, you know, we're not going to do this. I mean, even if the trust was there, the Russians won't bet anything on trust because Trump can change his mind the next day, he can change his mind in 20 minutes, and he might not even be here for that long.

So again, it's, yeah, they don't address the main. underlying causes of this conflict, and it is a very difficult thing to do. So the first step, of course, would be if the Europeans would actually allow themselves to talk to the Russians. This would be a good first step, but we're not quite there yet. The effort to steal Russian assets and the Belgium banks, were you surprised at the outcome, or did you think that Shuls and Macron and Starrmer would be able to brow beat the Belgian Prime Minister? Well, on one hand, I thought it was too crazy to get through.

On the other hand, I suspected that they might be able to get it through, because, I mean, there's been so much acts against the national self-interest. We cut ourselves off, that is, Europeans, from Russian energy, which results in our deindustrialization, the industrialization result in the US, the deprioritizing Europe. So we keep undermining our own interests time and time again. So I could have gone both ways on this. But again, the problem is every time the Europeans do something crazy, all opposition is essentially smeared and censored as being,

well, then you're with Putin. They even called Belgium the most important asset of Putin because they didn't fall in line by seizing all the money in Europe. But this is the problem. And it's not about being pro-putin, it's being pro your own national interest. And this thing now is even fragmenting Europe, because it's a very divisive issue to essentially throw the rule of law to decide and find some, essentially legalized theft. This is a very extreme.

Even though it didn't go through, it should be said that the EU nonetheless, it suspended these rules that it would vote on the sanctions every six months, and now they just frozen these assets indefinitely. So it's already in proving itself that the EU is proving itself to be quite a hazard to Europe. And this is essentially what Elon Musk is saying. So that also the US national security strategy, more or less wanting to liberate Europe from the EU. And instead of showing that it's a responsible actor, the EU is essentially showing that the national security strategy and Elon Musk are correct. that they are undermining Europe.

Here's Prime Minister Victor Orban on Wednesday. It's not clear to me if this is before or after the vote, but it's very, very clear that the EU vote, it's very, very clear how he feels about it, at Chris cut number 11. Guarantees for what? The whole idea is a stupid one. To take away the money of somebody.

There are two countries which are in war, yeah? It's not European Union, Russia and Ukraine. And somebody, European Union, would like to take away the money of one of the war with party. And then to give it to another one. It's a marching into the war. So the Belgian prime minister is right. We should not do that. That was right before the vote.

I think he's right marching into the war. How was this treated in Europe by the elites, by the media, by the ordinance, ordinary folk when this brainchild of Chancellor Mertz collapsed, and they came up instead with this $100 billion loan? Well, first it should be said that Viktor Orban also made a different point. That is, when the EU now lends all of this money, that is 90 billion euros or 100 billion. The problem then is the only way it can get this money back, if the Russians, if the Russians repay all of that or pays it in reparation. And the only way you get Russian reparation

if you defeat Russia. So the EU has now put itself in a position where if it don't go bankrupt, if it wants its money back, it has to then prolong the war, no matter how severe the consequences are also for Ukraine, but also steps towards nuclear war. So the EU is now in the business of war and the peace is our enemy. This is more or less what Viktor Orban said as well, which is also correct. So it's an extremely dangerous thing that's been done. I think the Europeans are a bit split. For many countries, they are a bit, and people are concerned how far away this is going. To this point, I would consider this to be largely elite project being driven. If you look at the polling

of people like Starmer, Macron, or Mertz, it's historically awful. They don't have much support for the policy. On the other hand, if you would ask the random person on the street, they would also find it difficult to criticize some of the things that are being done. Because we more or less have now the whole functioning almost like a cult where either you agree with the government or you're with the enemy. And so there's not much dissent anymore in the media as well. And of course we have some people who try to speak up. A colleague of mine actually, a retired colonel of the Swiss Army. of the Swiss Army that is in the Swiss intelligence, which is Colonel Jacques Bo, which

you might have heard of. The EU actually sanctioned him. He used to work for NATO. They sanctioned him. They froze his bank accounts, put travel ban on him, because his analysis reached the wrong conclusions. I mean, they're really getting very desperate now. This is criminal behavior.

There's no way this can possibly be legal. It's clearly criminal behavior. Our friend and colleague Gilbert Docterot tells me he doesn't even think that the EU rules permit a judicial challenge to what they did. They silenced them, they won't let him travel, and they won't let him spend his own money. How could that possibly, oh, because of his speech, he hasn't been convicted of a crime. How could that possibly be lawful? Well, no. And if you go through the EU documents, they explain that this is because he's been,

making pro-Russian comments and rhetoric and the talking points. First of all, you have to unpack what that comment mean. What is pro-Russian? This is a very vague term. As he said something positive about Russia, has he not demonized them, or has he taken Russia's side against the West? Because he only speaks, if this is an analysis that the West has provoked this war, that's not necessarily anti-Western or pro-Russian.

That's just recognizing if we want to avoid nuclear, sorry, nuclear war and we want to avoid ukraine being destroyed if we have provoked this and russia sees itself an existential threat if you want peace then you have to recognize first get the right diagnosis in order to solve this so it's full of these vague terms and also if you criminalize being pro-russian that's a very strange thing to criminalize as well but even the argument that he was pro-russian is that he the one example they used in the sanction is they said that he had suggested that Ukraine invited Russia's invasion on itself. But all that the colonel did was he quoted the former advisor of, that is Alexei Arstovich,

the former advisor of Zelensky, top advisor of Selensky, who made this point in in 2019 interview. He made the point that the more or less a quote was, the price we have to pay for NATO membership is a big war with Russia, and we'll win this war. He explained that if we try to join NATO, it will provoke the Russians to invade. When they invade NATO will help us, and together we'll defeat the Russians. It will be the coolest thing ever, and this will be our ticket into NATO. He's quoting Zelensky's top advisor, and this is the reason the EU sanctions him for spreading so-called conspiracy theory.

And does he have no recourse? There's nothing he can do. He can't go to a judge and ask that the sanctions be removed, because there was no due process? God knows. It's, again, the EU throws out the rulebook, so it's very hard to say

where are these banks in Switzerland? Are the Swiss banks going to listen to the creeps in Brussels? Well, hopefully not. Again, Switzerland's not in the European Union. I know the Colonel lives in Brussels, so there probably, not there, he has

his bank accounts frozen, but the Swiss government has been very quiet considering what the EU has done to one of its kernels but no it's it's really it's really hard to say how they might actually respond to this it's yeah it's very bullying but again this is self-harm it's not as if it's a pro-eu or pro-euro argument to be in favor of this the EU is destroying itself it's showing how desperate it is that mild criticism i mean if you can't if you can't accuse a colonel beau of being a pro russian agent i mean then you really are in deep trouble then there's no dissent allowed anymore i mean this is this job you assess what the opponent is afraid of

and how to explain how they're reacting which is a condition for resolving a crisis the problem in Europe, no, if you're not allowed to identify the security concerns of Russia. And that's more or less what the U.S. said. The Russians don't need any security guarantees in any deal. Again, this is what the peace agreement needs, mutual security guarantees. Well, the EU doesn't recognize the freedom of speech. I guess they could do this to Gilbert Docterow. He's going to be on Wednesday.

I'll ask him about it. He lives in Brussels. Yes, well, why not? This is not the end station. It's not as if this is where they'll stop. This is a pattern which keeps escalating the crackdown on free speech. So no, everyone could be next. This is, yeah, it's intimidation.

How did the EU come to this decision? Was there a vote? Or did Mrs. von der Leyen just to sign a piece of paper and ordered it to happen? Oh, yeah, it came there from the council, if I'm not mistaken. That is, it's not the EU parliament, which has. had any say about this. And this is the big problem. Even if it would be able to be reversed at some point, let's say two, three years down the road, it's not necessarily the outcome. It's the process, that's the punishment. And also the signal is sent to anyone else. If your analysis

do not reach the same conclusion that this is unprovoked by the nation by the most recent reincarnation of Adolf Hitler, then you might be sanctioned. We might freeze your accounts, make it impossible for you to, yeah, essentially pay your bills, and you'll be evicted from your house. You have to leave the continent. You're not allowed to travel around anymore around the continent. I mean, this is what we have become. This is what Europe is now, because... What happens if he tries to fly from Brussels to Zurich?

He can't get on the plane? I'm not sure how it works. Well, then he would be leaving the EU. to go to to switzerland which is not the EU but again they it is hard to ask this is kind a new new territory this kind of a way of sanctioning uh just sanctioning europeans especially military senior military people as well so no it's but it seems like this is a new thing unless this has proper and well-deserved the consequence of the enough pushback then they will essentially see this door as being kicked in

now we can continue to do this against other people wow i don't know how i don't know how this is going to end um and i would very much like to interview him if we do it'll be after the uh first of the year uh professor deeson thank you very much thanks for all the time you gave to us in 2025 as you may know um on friday we reached the 100 million view um mark for the second year in a row and And you're not a small part of that, and I'm deeply grateful for all the time you spent with us. I hope you have a great holiday, and we'll look forward to seeing you in January. Likewise. Merry Christmas, Judge. Merry Christmas. Do you and to your family? Thank you, Professor.

Coming up at 4 o'clock on whatever he wants to talk about, Scott Ritter, Judge Lepaltono for Judging Freedom. Thank you.