Judging Freedom - Prof. Glenn Diesen : NATO Taunting Putin

Episode Date: August 13, 2026

Prof. Glenn Diesen : NATO Taunting PutinSee 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? the government? What if 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 Thursday, August 13th, 2006. Professor Glenn Deeson joins us now. Professor Deeson always a pleasure, my friend. Thank you for accommodating my schedule. What is, here we are in the middle of the summer, 2026, four and a half years into the war in Ukraine. What is the attitude of EU leaders about President Putin? Well, it's the contemplation. for Putin didn't start, of course, with this war. It began about at least 20 years ago.

So, and it remains the same. It's quite negative. And when it comes to the war, the European leaders, at least, they keep following the same script. That is, no one's actually calling for peace. Well, they're calling for defeating Russia. So whenever they talk about peace, what is required for peace, it's essentially more missiles, more deep strikes in Russia and more. pressure and essentially the idea that if we just put enough pressure on the Russians, then the response

will be to become more flexible and ideally find a way of freezing the conflict. Again, this is another limitation. Even if they put an end to the war, the Europeans only want to speak about an unconditional ceasefire because they don't want a political settlement which freezes the situation, which makes the situation permanent and puts an end to it. Ideally, this would be a war that would continue until Russia would be defeated. So it is quite remarkable how little or complete absent the talk of peace is. And whenever they do speak of peace, it's always in the context of defeating Russia. I would remind you over the past four and a half years, we even had a lot of these so-called peace summits.

And Russia wasn't invited to them. And instead, they talk about, well, what is peace? Well, how do we defeat Russia? And remember, was it 23, you had the president of Poland arguing, well, Peace is when Russia's defeated and, you know, it's broken into many countries, smaller countries. All these captive nations, they call them, are set free. This is what peace means. So this is essentially defeating Putin is seen as a way of destabilizing and defeating Russia.

So here's a two-part question. Is NATO anything militarily without the United States? And should Putin fear NATO? Well, no, the NATO is the United States. That's where all the military capabilities are. And so it's a bit, well, the objective of the Europeans now that they believe that the US is less reliable. And in all fairness, the US has to make some priorities and deprioritize Europe as the world is multipolar and the US has, you know, limited resources. And, well, frankly put, Europe isn't a top priority.

They want to look after security for themselves, but they essentially want now to create a NATO without the United States, which is, well, that wouldn't be NATO at all because, again, the Europeans have become overly dependent on the US over the past 80-plus years. And, yeah, the country can't really look after their own security anymore. But, no, so it's not going to work without the United States. It's not just the military power. It's the fact that it's also this major power which isn't permanently based on the continent, which means the whole leadership competition is more or less muted as long as the US is here. That's why the US, in my opinion, is correctly referred to as the Great Pacifier, because as soon as the Americans will pull away, who should have a leadership,

should be the military powers of Britain or France, you know, have the Germans now saying, we're going to be the biggest military power on the continent. I'm not sure all the Europeans are comfortable with this. Now, Poland is saying that we're going to be the biggest military power. Who's going to produce the weapons? The French doesn't want to buy British weapons because they're not in the EU. The Germans would like to have a lot of this military industrial complex organized by Germany instead of within the EU format.

So immediately the squabbles begin. But I do think Russia has a reason to be worried about NATO. So it is a huge military block. And if we are going to stumble into our nuclear war, that's a very likely pathway, especially now that NATO is essentially deterring Russia, not from invading NATO, which was the original purpose. NATO's trying to deter Russia from responding to what is essentially NATO attacks on Russia. So we're walking, you know, very dangerous in a very dangerous direction.

What is NATO doing in Ukraine? Are there, we know there are NATO personnel there. Are there uniformed personnel there operating American equipment bought by the Europeans? What is your understanding of what the NATO troops are doing? I'm going to play a clip in a few minutes after you answer that, showing President Putin expressing I don't know if he means it or if it's for a domestic political audience, profound concern about NATO. But what's your understanding of what NATO is doing in Ukraine?

Well, they have military leaders we know are present in Ukraine. We know that intelligence services, they've been present in Ukraine since, well, immediately after NATO back, the toppling of Yanukovych back in 2014. And NATO have a lot of contractors as well, which worked there. So they also assist with getting mercenaries from places like Colombia, but also, of course, having contractors of themselves. So if you know a lot of the weapon systems being used now, we say these are Ukrainian strikes, but the weapons are supplied by NATO. So the storm shadows, the attackants, they're also not being operated by the Ukrainian. So essentially, NATO provides the weapons. NATO provides the intelligence and picks the targets.

They assist with intelligence to evade air defenses. They do most of the war planning. And at the end of the day, they also have contractors to operate missiles, such as the Takams and the stormshadows. So at the end of the day, there's a very little role for the Ukrainians. This is an attack on Russia, and this is one of the reasons why Russia was always worried about Ukraine being pulled into the NATO orbit, that they would be used as a launching pad as a proxy to attack within Russia.

And essentially all of Russia's concerns have been proven now. And one can, of course, make the counter argument. Well, that's because Russia responded by invading Ukraine. But, you know, you can't expect a great power like Russia to accept the NATO to convert Ukraine into this spearhead, which we can use against them any time. And Russia will stay safe. And we won't use this weapon against them as long as NATO – sorry, Russia behaves and does what we want.

This would give NATO complete escalation dominance over Russia and be able to threaten and escalate at any time. So, no, I think for anyone within Russia now who doubted the concerns of the Kremlin about NATO expansionism, essentially they've proven it to the Russians that, yes, this is why we couldn't accept it. So, no, it's, as I said before, It's quite a dangerous situation now.

Here's President Putin, excuse me, Professor. Here's President Putin two days ago in a military uniform addressing troops about his concern over NATO. Chris number 12. NATO is gradually seeping into the area and new military political blocks are being formed right before our eyes. New weapon systems are currently being deployed and are also planned for deployment here. which pose serious threats to our country as well. Tensions are also been significantly ramped up in the neighboring Arctic zone, which we have already mentioned,

specifically regarding the ongoing use of the Northern Sea route, although Russia has always, and I truly mean always, consistently advocated for, and now confirms its full and complete readiness for broad international cooperation and utilizing the many strategic advantages of the Northern Sea Roe for the mutual benefit of everyone atolling. And those are states that are genuine, interested in working with us are now showing a significant level of interest,

primarily from our close friends, such as China, India, and other nations. They are currently engaged in active discussions with us regarding these issues, and we will certainly welcome and encourage joint cooperation, both with our friends and with all countries. I read that, Professor Dazen. Oh, sorry, missed the first part of your question. How do you read that? How do you interpret what you just heard President Putin saying? Well, I think this is a

wider development. I mean, you and I have spoken before about how Russia over the past, not just four and a half years, but 12 years, has looked at how to address NATO's escalation in this war. And there's been an escalation, obviously, in the types of weapons that NATO's

used and the openness it has in terms of its involvement in attacking deep inside Russia. So at every turn, the Russians have essentially chosen to, well, look the other way, and instead to avoid ending up a direct war with NATO and instead just focused on defeating NATO's proxy, which is Ukraine. But the cost of this has always been the loss of Russia's deterrence.

And you now hear the language in the United States as well as across Europe, that while Russia doesn't defend its red lines, it would never dare to respond against NATO. And for this reason, you see now European leaders openly, you know, with weak militaries of their own, nonetheless, feeling very comfortable to talk about how it's necessary to ramp up deep strikes inside Russia, deliver more long-range weapons. And so, you know, in the past, this would be unthinkable. So I think for this reason, the most important thing for Russia now is to restore its deterrence.

And I think it's already being done during the process of doing it. The days of appeasing NATO by not responding is coming to an end. In that speech, Putin also made comments, for example, about the Europeans seizing Russian ships because they're branded as shadow fleet. And somehow that makes it legitimate to seize them, essentially accusing the EU of piracy, that now they will respond in kind. They will mirror these actions by seizing ships by the Europeans. And you also heard more concerns about at the end of now the worries, the Ukrainians are falling a bit apart. This is now that the Europeans and the US for that matter will start to escalate more. And they're worried about the weapon systems being placed out.

So again, preparation for war with Russia. And a key issue is also that of the northern sea route. Especially the United States, which has been quite hostile to this. Because the northern sea route is this Arctic corridor along the Russian Arctic. And it's essentially faster and cheaper than the other alternatives. And again, if you're a maritime hegemon, such as the United States, controlling the world's seas has always been a priority. And this is one corridor which will not be under U.S. control. It will be, well, just because of the borders and the ice, etc.

This is going to be much of it within Russian national territory. And no matter how much access the Russians grant to others transiting, they're still going to rely on their ports. search and rescue and essentially it's become one big Arctic straight of Hermos which falls outside US control. So they see the US taking very militant position in terms of balancing it. I think we'll remember in 2019 Mike Pompeo he showed up at the Arctic Council and gave a very hawkish speech about how Russia and China had to be confronted in the Arctic. And yeah, just as a last note on that, the Chinese of course which are seeking to connect the entire world with land routes and sea routes with this Belt and Road initiative.

They also conceptually integrated the Russia's northern sea route into its concept. So they referred to it as the polar silk road. So initially in the past, the Russians would always prioritize working with the US and Europeans to develop the Arctic. But since 2014, this has shifted as the Russian economy shifts towards the east. And cooperation in the Arctic has also shifted to the east. So they now want to develop this with the Chinese, Indians, Yeah, and yeah, so this is being a new flashpoint, so they're preparing. What happens if Russia attacks NATO facilities in Ukraine, aware of the fact that they are manned by

British, German, French, and probably American, either contractors or troops? Well, it's if you want to go up the escalation ladder, and the Russians see this as a necessity to go up to escalation ladder, because they have to see. begin to mirror the actions of NATO because the NATO countries are quite openly now participating in strikes not just attacking Russian soldiers in Ukraine and that was something that NATO was more open about early on that they were sending weapons you know they had intelligence services on the ground but the point was to strike Russia within Ukraine that was considered to be of course it makes them direct direct participants in the war but when they

when NATO began to shift that is what all the European leaders are talking about the necessity to bring the war into Russia. Another striking within Russia, that's an escalation, further escalation. And so you can see now attacking NATO assets and troops within Ukraine, that would be, yeah, of course, the this trigger crisis and demand within NATO for retaliation. But it's easier for NATO to swallow and not be forced or feel compelled to respond. but it could also be seen as a step up the latter because after they begin taking out NATO troops and assets in Ukraine

in the future they could start to move into NATO as well that is to take out some warehouses in Germany for example ideally at night when they don't end up killing any workers but just destroying the equipment which is being developed for the specific purpose of killing Russians as that one German journalist made very clear in that recent press conference. So it is an escalation.

It is a provocation. You're going to have members within NATO, especially the Baltic states, which would then use this as a reason for why the NATO countries have to get more involved and escalate further. But again, I always go back to my point. It's important to accept that this war and NATO expansion to Ukraine itself was always considered by the,

the Russians to be an existential threat. Because if you want to understand why the Russians are willing now to go up the escalation ladder, begin to target NATO either in Ukraine or outside, is because it's the opposite response of what NATO hopes. Because in NATO we attack deep inside Russia, we hope the pressure will force the Russians to walk away. But if you accept that this is an existential threat to Russia, then you know it's not possible to wind it down or capitulate to walk out.

the only possible response is escalation. And that's essentially what they're going for. Well, what will happen if Russia attacks these NATO facilities? Or let me ask you another question. The United States military humiliated in Iran. What is the view of it by European leaders today? Well, I think it's a bit of a wake-up call because after the Cold War, the United States was seen as being all-powerful. And that perception has been quite important.

And it's been, I think, quite deliberately upheld by all leaders. I remember only a few years ago, President Biden was making the point that some of he was asked, can he fight both the Russians and the Chinese at the same time? And his answer was more or less the obligatory answer. Yes, of course, with the United States America. There's no more powerful country in the world. And this was an important image to send around the world because no one would dare to take on the US. And if the US decided to strike someone, you would just absorb that pain, not retaliate because otherwise the strike from the US could be much more powerful.

So, you know, this was quite important. And this was one of the things I think the US lost in this war on Iran. That is, it exposed that there's limits to US power. limited resources. This is why Trump insists that he can wipe out Iran more if he wants. This is why insist that they have unlimited weapons. There's no shortage because upholding this mirage is quite important. So I think, in terms of your question, I think for the Europeans, it's something to get used to because they now look at the United States as the main security provider and they look at both the intentions and the capabilities. The intentions, the U.S. has made

clear that in the future the priority will have to be the Western Hemisphere in East Asia, not Europe. And in terms of the Middle East, they also saw how weapons were diverted from Europe towards the Middle East. And so they see the intentions are not focusing on Europe, and they see the capabilities are very limited. And essentially, Iran, a medium, medium-sized country, was able to defeat the Americans. Of course, they were assisted by a job, and well many other things the Strait of Hermous but but at the end of the day they have to be honest about the limits of the United States that they can't essentially defeat everyone and and just a quick note though if if Russia would attack NATO the assumption has always been that

no one would ever dare to do this because of article 5 which considers this an attack on all but for those people who read article 5 of NATO would see that it actually says yes it's a considered an attack on all but that does mean that everyone is obligated to respond it means that everyone can respond in the way they say fit including the use of force if they decide to but it's not obligatory to use force so the idea that the United States would sacrifice its key citizens in a nuclear war with Russia because one of the Baltic states decided to get too aggressive with Russia you know i think it's doubtful and i think this is causing some you know panic within within

europe because they essentially outsourced their defense and their strategic thinking to the united states meanwhile there's still a hundred thousand american troops in europe yes no that's correct and uh so no the the u s it's not going away tomorrow it's uh it's a it's a huge power it's a very formidable military force i I would advise no one to underestimate the United States. But at the same time, this kind of assumption, which we had since the 1990s, that if there's one superpower,

the US would be able essentially to defeat anyone if it just had the intentions to do so. This is, by the way, always the assumption of the Europeans. If we can get the Americans committed to defeating Russia, then it's more or less a done deal because America has the capabilities. So, no, it's, I think over time, though, we're going to see that these capabilities, they are limited, even though 100,000 troops in Europe is, yeah, it's quite a lot.

Right. Professor Deeson, thank you very much, my dear friend. Great analysis, as always, and we'll look forward to seeing you next week. Are you back to lecturing? Do colleges in Europe open up in the middle of August? Yes. university this is the first week of classes so yeah back in school so all right it's still 110 degrees fahrenite in the shade here in new york city the colleges i don't think open up for another three or four

weeks but good luck in your work thank you for your time we'll look forward to seeing you next week good again judge thank you thank you coming up later today at two o'clock the golden boy max bloomethul at three o'clock the cleanup hitter colonel douglas mcgregor Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.