Judging Freedom - Prof. Glenn Diesen : The EU Wants More War!

Episode Date: November 26, 2025

Prof. Glenn Diesen : The EU Wants More War!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Your first great love story is free when you sign up for a free 30-day trial at audible.ca slash Wondery. That's audible.ca slash wondering. Hi, everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, November 26, 2025. Our dear friend, Professor Glenn Deeson joins us now. Professor Deeson, thank you very much for your time. We have eight shows today. day and appreciate very much the time you're able to give us on accommodating our crazy schedule. Let's just get right to the heart of this. The war in Ukraine, in your view, is it going to be ended on the battlefield or in a conference room? Well, it could go both ways.

I mean, I hear convincing arguments going each direction, but I suspect that it would end on the battlefield, simply because there would be too much opposition to what Russia demands in a peace settlement. That is, given how far this war has gone in terms of NATO's involvement, that is his direct involvement, crossing that line from a proxy war. And the lack of alternatives now. I think simply that the Russians have put very high demands, and there's very little that can be done to push it. the other direction because we waited too long.

We waited until the Ukrainian army began to collapse. And now more or less the Russians can dictate their own terms. So given that Russia has high demands and it's not a position to dictate them, I just don't see how it's almost possible now for the Ukrainians, the American hawks, but possibly most of all, the Europeans, to accept any of this. because, yeah, if you read the Europeans' proposals for a peace settlement, it's more or less a wish list of Russia's capitulation. So I think this will be settled on the battlefield, or maybe a combination.

When things really collapse in Ukraine, perhaps reality sets in and a peace settlement can be accepted. Does the European public, as far as you can tell, you live in work and lecture and teach there, share the same enthusiasm for war that European leaders share? Well, in most wars, the governments are able to drum up a lot of public enthusiasm, excitement in the early stages, but you see it's dropping off for a variety of reasons. I think more and more people are realizing that the massive propaganda campaign, the war propaganda, they've been exposed to that not everything is correct. Again, they were told for almost four years that Ukraine is winning, Ukraine is winning,

Russia's taking much higher losses, they're sending meat waves to the war's the front, you know, the Russian economy is collapsing. We heard since March of 2022 that the Russians are running out of missiles and Putin seems to have a new disease which will kill him every single week. At some point, people start to question whether or not they've been lied to. But furthermore, no, I don't think the public has that much appetite for this war. I think it's more now a political elite which bet everything on this, including their own legitimacy and political future.

That is not just them personally, but the entire ideology they rest on, their vision of the world, the way they see their own role in world history. They thought that after the Cold War, the U.S. and Europe, well, forming the political West, would essentially transition away from the old world into some modern utopia where the world would be reorganized in our image. Everyone would become liberal democracies under the leadership of the political West, and suddenly it's all falling apart. So I think the delusion is much stronger now among the political elites, while you have now drop-off among the public. Here's the queen of those elites, commander-in-chief of the EU's army. Of course, doesn't exist, thanks be the God. Ursula Lavandrelay and Chris number seven. Any credible and sustainable peace plan should first and foremost stop the killing and end the war while not sowing the sea.

for a future conflict. We have agreed on the main elements necessary for a just and lasting peace and Ukraine's sovereignty. And let me highlight three of them. First, borders cannot be changed by force. Second, as a sovereign nation, there cannot be limitations on Ukraine's armed forces that would leave the country vulnerable to future attack

and thereby also undermining European security. European security. Third, the centrality of the European Union and securing peace for Ukraine must be fully reflected. Ukraine must have the freedom and sovereign right to choose its own destiny. They have chosen a European destiny. It starts with the country's reconstruction, its integration into our single market and our defense industrial base, and ultimately joining our union. We will continue our work together with Ukraine, our member states, the Coalition of the Willing and the United States, to make real progress towards peace. What is important is that we move forward as partners on a single track. So the American Secretary of the Army spent two days in Geneva this week negotiating with this crazy lady and with some other European leaders.

What are they negotiating? I really, it's hard to say, but if you do see the European leaders, they do suggest that they need to have the final say in anything because it's in Europe. But this is kind of a, it doesn't reflect reality, which is why it confuses people around the world. Because whenever the Europeans make arguments for, sorry, the European leaders make arguments for how a peace settlement should look like, they always have this normative approach.

That is they're arguing, you know, Russia's the aggressor, Ukraine is the victim, and NATO is just, you know a third party looking to help so because of this it's unfair and therefore that the Russians should be allowed to to give the fewest concession so any peace agreement has to favor Ukraine because they're the victim so the whole idea that the Russia's winning it also already won to a large extent and that the loser doesn't get to dictate the terms this kind of doesn't enter the discussion at all so if you listen to them not at one point to ever discuss what the russian security demands or what the russian security concerns are

it's more or less a long wish list demanding russia's capitulation but this is a very consistent theme over the past 30 years we after the cold war we began to construct a new europe a europe where all countries should belong in europe except for the largest one which is russia so the whole idea is if we just strip russia of its if it's a representation in institution so it has no institutional voice then somehow it would just go away but again reality asserts itself if a great power is not allowed a voice in institutions then it will assert itself militarily and this is yeah what we have seen so yeah just as a final note though that her all her comments are organized around

the notion that all the only thing you need for peace is for Ukraine to have a powerful deterrent. That is so Russia will never dare to attack again. But the lesson from the Cold War, if you look at Austria, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, they were safe, not because they had powerful

deterrent, which could threaten the Soviet Union, it was because they were neutral. And indeed, if you look at Ukraine, before the 2014 coup, in which NATO countries hijacked, Ukraine's intelligence services, military and political system, no one in Russia had any territorial claims against Ukraine. Most Ukrainians even favored a partnership with Russia over others, and only 20%

approximately wanted NATO membership. So one has to ask whether or not just sufficient deterrence is really the solution to Europe's problem. But again, we don't have debates in Europe anymore. We have governments who, you know, spout the official truths. We have the media which repeats it, and any dissent is, you know, the work of Russian propaganda. So common sense doesn't really get its fair hearing. They, the European leadership, really don't have any leverage here, do they? Other than perhaps the theft of Russian state funds, which fortunately the Belgians are not going to permit the lion's share of it, which is in their bank, to be stolen.

But that's why I said, what is the Secretary of the Army negotiating for? What leverage to the European leaders have? Their militaries are very small. They're all operating in the red. If I'm Donald Trump, what do I care what they think? Well, I don't think they have much leverage at all over the Americans. They try to sell this to Selensky, though. So whenever Zelensky has to meet Trump, then he will always call the Europeans first

because the Europeans promised that no matter what happens in the U.S., they will continue to provide the support. So that's essentially their back channel, the way they attempt to get some leverage. But you even now hear many from the political establishment in Ukraine as well, that why are we listening to the Europeans? I often cite the recent tweet by the former press secretary of Zelensky. She also came out saying, why do we listen to the Europeans? They don't have any weapons.

They don't have any influence. They don't even talk to the Russians. They don't have the money to finance us. So why do we reject this peace agreement and more or less keep sending our young to die in the trenches when there's nothing they can really do? It's all talk. And I also think that this is the main leverage that the Europeans have. That is no matter how bad the losses are on the front line,

there's no need to negotiate really because it's not our men. It's not our young boys dying. You know, if this were our soldiers, we would have negotiated a long time ago. Right, right. I think with Ukrainians. And again, then they're seen as a bargain. Can you tell us if the 20,000, 28-point plan has sort of dominated the thinking of the Europeans and put on the back burner

the idea of stealing these hundreds of billions in European banks, or are they still planning and plotting to do that? The hundreds of billions, I'm sure President Putin regrets putting the money there, but whatever, it's there. These are Russian state assets in European banks that the Europeans are contemplating stealing. Are they still contemplating? doing that as far as you can tell no i think they're more determined than ever because the logic is that if the americans are considering to put an end to the war because of being lost this is really the time to prove that no no we can buy a few more years that is if we just steal the russian assets then this could be something that would turn trump's mind around

that you might continue the fighting also the side of the side of the side of the side of the Some EU parliamentarians have argued, well, we don't have a seat at the table. Well, if we steal the Russian assets, then that will be our ticket to get a seat at the table. So this is a discussion which is coming back. And the EU foreign policy chief, Kayakalas, she recently spoke with the Belgian politicians because she wants to force them or pressure them, sorry, that's the pressure, into stealing these assets given that Euroclair is in Belgium. And she was making the point, why are you worried about the legal consequences?

No judge in the EU will hear Russia's case. They will not take Russia's side, which is a horrible thing to say about the legal system in Europe, if this is really or truly the case, that it's already been predetermined now that theft has been legalized. But no, I think they're going to push for it, but they're also looking for plan B's. do if it's not possible to steal the assets of Russia? What will the EU do when the likely Russian military victory, and I'll describe victory as a collapse of the Ukraine military or the Kremlin is satisfied that they've acquired the real

estate that they believe is truly theirs, when this victory comes about? What are the Europeans going to do? The Germans are going to aim missiles at Moscow? Well, they could. Again, if you listen now to the rhetoric coming out of Europe, the Germans are suggesting that Russia can attack by 2029. We have to prepare for war. In the UK, they say that they're facing an existential threat from Russia, but they put the date as 2027. Some have argued it can also come next year.

You have the French new army chief arguing that we have to be prepared to lose our children in a war with Russia. So this is kind of the rhetoric coming out. Now, I suspect, though, that at the moment when they see the terms coming from Russia, which has all of these territorial claims and really cementing the neutrality of Ukraine, they're rejecting it because they're leaning towards the alternative, which is that they get to dictate everything, as their proposal would suggest Ukraine should join NATO, there will be powerful security guarantees,

nor territorial concessions, the Russians should pay reparation. So just a long list of, well, essential nonsense, delusion. But I think once now, and it's not in the future, you already see now the city's collapsing at faster, faster rate. And I think soon it will become evident alternative to this bad deal, the Russians are asking for is something much, much worse. So essentially, the concessions of Russia is not to take further territory.

And I think this new reality will begin to assert itself, but first, things have to get, I think, a lot worse. How does the corruption scandal in Ukraine play in Europe? I mean, you're talking about billions, maybe 100 billion, stolen by these people. How does that play out in Europe? Well, it makes it more difficult for the political elites to send more of our money

because people were told it would be used to save lives, allow Ukraine to defend itself, but of course it's not popular when you see this is merely lining the pockets of its elites, which is now setting up camps in various European cities, and in the United States. So it does take some of the war enthusiasm out. And also, as I mentioned before, we don't really have any dissent approved anymore.

That is, if you criticize the war, then, you know, you're taking Russia's side. If you're criticizing the narrative, you're a Putinist. So there's no avenue anymore for criticizing any of the policies. And if you say that, you know, Zelensky is not the second coming. of Churchill and this is not a shining or beacon of democracy which Russia just couldn't stand to have democracy on this border

well then it will also be propaganda but now that you have this huge corruption scandal it's in everyone's faces that narrative has to change and it does open up for some criticism in terms of whether or not we should continue to finance

this. We are hearing in the US of a massive of Ukrainian military desertions and being welcomed, obviously, with open arms by the Russians. Are you familiar with this? Is this covered in the press in Europe? I think it's covered to a greater extent in the United States

because in the U.S. there are more political and media movements which challenges the logic of continuing this war. But no, it's not that popular. Of course, you see it being used to very heavily from the Russians, as you suggested. So the whole idea of Zelensky and his ilk buying their golden toilets. I mean, the Russians are using this for everything is worth, obviously. because again for three and a half years they were told that

Zelensky was the best Democrat there was so of course they're going to use this to undermine the credibility of the Ukrainian leader but this is the problem reality should have some merit of its own and at the moment if you support the war in Europe

you can't say anything that might undermine the legitimacy. So all the rhetoric coming out of the media and from the politicians, they have one common denominator that is maintain public support for the war, which is why you can't say anything negative about Zelensky, can't say anything negative about the way he's dragging Ukraine inside of their homes to send to the trenches. You can't talk about the corruption until now recently.

Can't tell about, talk about their losses. You have to pretend as if the Russians, Sorry, the Ukrainians aren't suffering. You have to exaggerate the Russian losses. So there's one common denominator. It's always key public support for the war. And I think that's why the corruption scandal is very critical now because there's no denying this.

The German Bundest has been talking about cash for the Ukrainians to help them quickly build some sort of. infrastructure so they don't freeze the death during the winter where would they get that cash would they have to borrow it well the Europeans are starting to go into the red now that is i'm not sure where the cash would come from if you look at the economy in germany for example it's not doing well at all and part of this is well part is the sanctions which they cut themselves off from russia part of it's also the destruction of a north stream in which the Germans have to look the other way.

It's also given that they have the growing security dependence on the U.S. The U.S. has also been able to, well, essentially convert this into political and economic loyalty. So the Germans have to also cut their economic ties with China and other centers of power. So overall, the economies in Europe are doing quite poorly. And as they're doing poorly, they have better offers coming out of the United States if they move their businesses across Atlantic or some going to China. But either way, there seems to be a systemic decline

in the European economies. So given this, that is their industry, deindustrializing, they haven't adjusted to the new digital or fourth industrial revolution with this new digital technologies. Overall, yeah, things are going very bad. So this is really not a very good time to start handing out money and trying to fill the shoes of the Americans in terms of supporting

Ukraine. You mentioned a dispute that I hadn't thought about in a while, Nord Stream. Does the German leadership, not publicly, but amongst themselves, acknowledge that it was the Americans that destroyed the Nord Stream pipeline? Well, I think it was two years ago. There was an article in Washington Post when they had, they cited a European Union. diplomat and he said well we learned that we're not going to like the answers we get so we stopped asking the questions yeah summarize nicely well they know that well first we were told it was

Russia because it had to be Russia this is out of the Russian playbook which is apparently to blow up your own infrastructure and and this is why we have to escalate in Ukraine this is why we had to militarize the Baltic Sea then we're told that well actually it was Russia, it was the Ukrainians and America tried to stop them and then Zelensky tried to stop it but it was too late. So I think most people understand that if the Ukrainians had a role, then certainly it could not have happened without the knowledge of the US. But overwhelmingly, I think most people recognize that most likely the US had something, participation in this. But again, it's not a good narrative and we have narrative.

driven media. So what do you do if either you blame the Ukrainians or the United States for destroying your energy infrastructure, it's easier to say nothing. So the politicians do not talk about it anymore and the media stopped talking about it as well. There were some efforts for the Germans to investigate some Ukrainians who were involved. But at the end of the day, the polls came forward and said that they wouldn't hand anyone over. And the Germans, Germans should feel ashamed for having built the pipeline to begin with. So this is, yeah. I mean, this is where we are.

Just crazy. Crazy. Germans are suffering because they don't have the natural gas coming from Russia. Professor Deeson, thank you very much. We have a busy day today, and I know you changed your schedule to accommodate ours because we have a four-day holiday weekend coming up. Much appreciated, my dear friend. We'll look forward to seeing you next week.

Thank you. And good luck with other seven interviews. Oh, thank you. Thank you. We're almost halfway done. Our schedule has changed slightly, but not very much. At 1 o'clock, Colonel Douglas McGregor at 2 o'clock, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, at 3 o'clock, the great Phil Giraldi, at 3.30, the one and only Max Blumenthal. And at 4 o'clock, Professor John Mearsheimer.

Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you. Thank you.