Judging Freedom - Prof. Glenn Diesen : Why Europe Is Collapsing.

Episode Date: December 10, 2025

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

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for judging freedom. Today is Wednesday, December 10th, 2005. Professor Glenn Deeson joins us now. Professor Deeson, thank you very much for accommodating my schedule. A lot of our viewers, and I among them have become fascinated with what appears to be the rapidly changing relationship between the United States and Europe. as a whole. And I'm happy that you're here to help us attack these issues. I want to go back into a little bit of history through which you and I lived. Were the Europeans involved at all, as far as we know, in the 2014 coup in Ukraine that deposed the popularly elected

Victor Yanukovych, which we can assume that MI6 was involved. We know CIA, was involved, but were European leaders involved? Well, the Europeans were always a bit more careful as opposed to the United States and the United Kingdom. But they did play an important role. That is, when a lot of the pressure had been mounted on the Ukrainian Prime Minister, that's our President Yanukovych, the problem then was

that it was the Europeans who put a lot of pressure on him. You heard comments from the polls and others that it was time for him to either step down or accept this unity government. So even when they did this deal with Yanukovych, when they put in place this unity government, it was the Europeans who actually signed under as guarantors that they would back this. Even though once Yanukovych was toppled, they, of course, did the exact opposite. They sent all their top diplomats to Kiev to make the whole thing seem as legitimate as possible.

But, no, the Europeans did have a role. They tend always to follow the United States, but it was really the U.S. and the UK that was leading this. And the whole thing was more or less, more than less, a subterfuge to get Ukraine into NATO. Yes, so I think, well, from 2008, when the United States. was pushing the Europeans to accept Ukraine into NATO. This is when the Europeans were pushing back because they realized that this would be a disaster. As Angela Merkel suggested,

this would be interpreted as a declaration of war by Moscow. So they realized that this was a folly, so they couldn't get Ukraine directly in. I think that more the goal was to do what NATO often does. It pursues this salami tactics. That is, you do gradually a little bit at the time. which makes it more acceptable. NATO did the same with missile defense. A lot of countries, especially European countries, were quite worried, for example, about the

NATO missile defense or U.S. missile defense in the 1990s and pushed back. So the U.S. strategy as it evolved was simply, well, let's just put out 10 interceptor missiles. No one could rationally oppose this. And then, well, why not 20? Why not 50? and then just gradually expand it, and it becomes much more difficult to criticize it. And as, well, I followed the cables, which were leaked by WikiLeaks, and it showed that the strategy from the U.S. side was also to push the Europeans on alliance solidarity. If you don't hold the line, you're undermining solidarity, and the entire European security architecture could be risked.

So there was a way of getting the Europeans going, but, again, traditionally was Europeans who were worried about provoking Russia. Now, of course, the roles have switched. Right, right. My, how times have changed. I mean, the military equipment being used by the Ukrainians is nearly all manufactured in the United States. So what vested interest do the EU leaders? And I'm going to single out the triumvirate that met with President Zelensky at 10 Downing Street earlier this week, Chancellor Mers, President Macron, Prime Minister Starmor. What vested interest do they have in the continuation of the war?

Is it just Russia phobia? Well, I think it's a variety of thing. One is, of course, there's always been a lot of hatred and resentment of Russia. And the main security architecture, which was pursued after the Cold War, was that of collective hegemony. That is it should be NATO-centric. The US and the Europeans would together form security architecture for Europe based upon an expanded NATO, which meant that we would create Europe without Russia as the largest European country. Everyone else should be included except for the largest country in Europe.

So this was kind of the format for also preserving the relationship with the US and keeping the United States in Europe and this has always been quite important because the US is seen as the ultimate pacifier. It's able to prevent Europeans from, well, competing too fiercely against each other. It also isn't necessary to, well, make the Europeans march in lockstep because they wouldn't be able to do it otherwise. It also makes Europe more relevant given that they hitched themselves to the United States. So there's a lot that they depended on this. But again, if you're going to have NATO as the dominant security architecture, you do need that common enemy, and that common enemy is Russia. The problem is, well, this is why I think many people see this war as a war about world order, because if we could defeat the Russians, this would revive the purpose and mission of NATO.

We would build a powerful Ukrainian army to check the Russians for civil future. US will be anchored in Europe. On the contrary, if we lose the war, which we are, well, I think we already lost it, there's going to be very different consequences. The U.S. will then seek to pivot a bit away from Europe, focus more on the Western Hemisphere in Asia. The Europeans, of course, can't deny a role for Russia in Europe anymore, and the Europeans themselves will begin to fragment. So the whole idea of NATO keeping the United States in, the Russians out,

then this will be to some extent. extent put on its head. So there's a lot at stake here and the Europeans essentially see the entire European post-World War II model falling apart. Right, right, right. Entirely, I mean, isn't it obvious to the common folks in Europe as well as to the elites and political leadership that the Ukraine war is either already lost or very, very close to the end? I think it's becoming more common sense, but it's very difficult to say because you're not allowed to say common sense out loud. I mean, for anyone who focuses or any students who look towards the European Union, they know that constructivism, speech acts, all of this is quite important, which is the assumption of what you say essentially creates new reality.

So once they state obvious that the United States is de-prioritized Europe, we have to deal with that reality. the Europeans will begin to fragment. Once you accept that the war has been lost, then of course, why send more weapons? Why continue this in any way? So there's a concern about recognizing reality. Once reality has been recognized, then essentially you have to wake up and you can't continue on this path. And I think because there is no plan B, the only plan of Europeans was Russia should be defeated, a strategic defeat that would weaken Russia, knock it out from the ranks of great powers. This was the only goal. There's nothing else. And it complicates it further, the fact that there's not that much the freedom of speech, I think, has diminished, which makes it difficult to have course correction. I mean, I've asked this wall here on Europe, what exactly is the plan if we can't defeat the Russians?

Because they are winning. And, you know, you're told that this is what Putin wants us to think. If you say it, you could undermine the public support for the war. You can ask, what exactly would our objective be? What does it mean to defeat Russia? It's the largest nuclear power. This is an existential threat. There's no real answer. So we don't have any talks.

We have political leadership that speaks in emotional slogans and, yeah, empty rhetoric. When they had their meeting on Monday at 10 Downing Street, Chancellor Merr's President McCrone, Prime Minister Starrmer, and Belodemir Zelensky, I thought, my God, what are they going to offer him? And what came out of that meeting? Zelensky's offer to hold elections providing NATO guarantees strategic support or security for the elections. I mean, to me, that's a step backwards, not forward.

No, this is, I can't remember how many days he wanted, but all the way up to the election as well, which essentially, if they're going to have elections, if the Ukrainians should be allowed to elect a new leadership, what Zelensky demands is that NATO shuts more or less down the airspace to ensure there's security so they can vote in peace. Now, at the face of it sounds reasonable. You want to, you need some, some, some, peace and they can't have necessarily elections in the war zone but of course what is doing here is attempting to drag in the Europeans and Americans into Ukraine as a condition for having

elections well once you pulled in NATO into Ukraine now it's well they're not going to leave this is the guarantee for for not having to make any concessions to Russia because the only reason why anyone's even talking about

neutrality for Ukraine or or seeding some territories or even having elections in Ukraine is because the Russians are winning. So the whole point is bring NATO into Ukraine and then there's no more Russian offensive than there's no more need to make any of these concessions. So it's a non-starter and I think they know this. I think it's just an effort to essentially sell to Trump the idea that they have a convincing peace formula which he just has to pressure on the Russians. So again, direct Trump's fury towards the Russians, and then we can prolong the war.

Here is Vladimir Zelensky. I hesitate to call him President Zelensky. Everybody calls him President Zelensky. His presidency expired. Who knows if he's even going to run for election, but whatever, it's obvious who I'm talking about. But here he is yesterday. He doesn't mention NATO,

but he does say once the United States and Europe, to help him he said everything but use the acronym nato chris cut number 14 look i'm ready for the elections not only that but i'm now asking and i'm saying this openly for the united states to help me possibly together with our european colleagues to ensure security for the elections then in the next 60 to 90 days ukraine will be ready to hold elections i personally have the will and the readiness to do so furthermore since this is how things have turned out I'm asking the members of our faction, in principle, are parliamentarians to prepare legislative proposals on the possibility of changing the legislative framework and the law on elections during

martial law. Elections during martial law. He has, of course, declared martial law during which his term expired. Their martial law prohibits elections during martial law. I mean, our friend Sergei Lavrov is going to see right through this you're not going to they're not going to allow european and american troops to come into uh ukraine for 60 to 90 days on the pretext of preparing for an election that is basically a rearmament right under their noses no oh of course although i think the objective here is quite clear the idea that you need the nato troops in ukraine for 60 to 90 days and let's be honest the one once they've been there for 60 or 90 days they're not going to go in anywhere. This is kind of the same incrementalism or salami tactics that the Russians

fear the most from NATO as well. So no, it's not going to happen. I do think that if they needed two, three days or a week to hold the elections, then there could be some arrangement for a ceasefire for some days to have the election, but not 90 days with NATO troops inside Ukraine. Again, the Russians invaded Ukraine four years ago, for one. major reason, and that was they could not accept NATO in Ukraine, either as a member or a de facto member of NATO. They consider it an existential threat. I always make the point. It doesn't matter if NATO doesn't agree with this assessment. This is what the Russians see, and this is what they're acting upon. And this reality, one has to address it because the idea that in

victory the Russians would accept NATO in Ukraine, it doesn't make any sense at all. So I think it's a non-starter. I get all the moral arguments for this, but it doesn't, it doesn't correspond with reality. So I just think it's just delusional. It's not going to happen. So they're wasting a lot of diplomatic efforts when they could be discussing real things. Here's a clip from President Putin. I think it's yesterday, actually saying we laugh at the thought that Europe would attack us and we laugh at the thought that Europe thinks we'll attack them, Chris, the shortened number 15. They are telling their population that Russia is getting to attack Europe, and we have to strengthen our defense. I'm not sure whether they serve the military, industry interests, or maybe they try to basically increase.

political ratings, it's very difficult to say. But this is a lie. This is a total lie. But when everything is being fed to the society and the citizens are scared and they want to hear them, we don't have any aggressive plans towards Europe. All right, that was a month and a half ago. was the end of, well, three weeks ago, the end of November. But it's obvious he gets it what's going on, isn't it?

Oh, no, I think very, very much so. No, they, again, it's not even, they're not sitting down considering this or working out any details. There's nothing to start at there. This is, it's just never going to happen. So, no, I don't, I don't think. anyone takes this seriously, at least not the Russians, and I don't think from Washington either. I think it's more efforts at constructing further narratives.

That is, you know, who is pushing for peace, who is opposed to peace? Because I think the Europeans found themselves in a difficult spot, because when Trump, after Biden's long, well, essential boycott of any diplomacy or negotiations, and Trump started talking with Moscow, the Europeans found themselves in that. a strange spot because they were claiming that they wanted peace, but they refused to even talk to the opposing side. No one wants to pick up the phone and call Moscow. So how can it make sense of this? And Salensky also refused to even talk to Russia before Trump took over. So now it looks like the Russians are the one pushing for peace while the Europeans and Zelensky

are opposed to it. So they're working on narratives. I mean, narratives is a big thing of how the Europeans organize and part of it is also because exactly how Europe is that is when you have an EU of 27 member states how do you reach consensus across all this different economic and security interests you really do rely on narratives to shame essentially from forward one acceptable policy and I always make the point that this is one of the key problems we have that we got trapped in our own narratives that is when the Russians invaded the key phrase was always repeat and every new segment and every politician was it was unprovoked now this is an important narrative because if it's unprovoked then it's a military opportunism it's

it has to be discouraged and it has to be pushed back otherwise otherwise you're just going to reward the opponent and this is what how we trapped ourselves because now we lost the war and and whoever wants to suggest that well perhaps we now have to face some consequences. Well, we can't talk to the Russians. We can't make any concessions because then we would reward their expansionism because we all married into this narrative that it was unprovoked, that the Russians had nothing to fear. They just one day woke up and wanted territory. Right. Well, that's a great observation. I mean, it is unprovoked if you're willing to ignore history, if you're willing to ignore reality, if you're blinded by an ideology

like the American neocons and the European nationalists. Before we go, what has been the general or collective, if you can put your finger on the pulse reaction in EU capitals to the national security strategy released by President Trump earlier this week? It's a true, if followed, which is always a big if two big ifs, with Trump, a radical change in the relationship between the United States and Europe. Even the Pope was American, of course, objected to it. Well, from my perspective, it's, well, it's not a great document.

I mean, it doesn't really outline clearly what exact strategy is being advanced here. But it does make sense to a large extent. That is, after the Cold War, the US adopted the idea of liberal hegemony, that it would be only one center of power, and it would perpetuate this unipolar moment. But as we see, the predictable thing has happened. What does the global primacy lead to? Well, the US exhausted itself in terms of economics, social, politically. And at the same time, it sees the rising centers of power have an incentive to collectively balance the US

because they don't want to live under a hegemon. So it's become unsustainable. I think only looking at the unsustainable debt, this is evident. and, of course, the concern about the U.S.-Russia partnership. So what does the U.S. want to do? Well, if there's a multipolar world, you have to make priorities. And then the main priorities is then the U.S. own border. So look at the Western Hemisphere, that there's no great powers there,

and also confront China. That's the main rival. And, well, then you have to pivot away from somewhere because you can't be everywhere, and that somewhere is Europe. It's not that relevant. The Europeans become weaker, less relevant. and the division of Europe, which was necessary, that is NATO expansion for the unipolar moment,

it's very destructive in the multiple. Has the moderate, Star Murmertz, Macron, I don't mean to disrespect them by just calling them by their last names, but as a short hand handle, have they commented on this? I mean, there's no major power competition between the United States and Russia. This is dramatic. This is 180 degree change from 75, 80 years of the Cold War mentality, going back to the end of World War II.

Well, Friedrich Merritt, the Blackwater Chancellor of Germany, he made this comment that, you know, America first is fine, but you can't have America alone. You have to also have partners. And if you can't work with Europe, you can work with us, the Germans. And he doesn't realize that Germany has become one of the, well, seen as one of the worst ones in Europe. So the idea is that they think the Americans are isolating themselves by not continuing this transatlantic partnership or downgrading it. So there's a lot of frustration with the US deprioritizing Europe. Europe, but also the security strategy is also quite critical of the EU leadership. That is that they're very authoritarian, undemocratic, by marginalizing political opposition, media.

And this is attributed to a lot of the decline of Europe, both the economic, as well as the cultural or civilizational aspects. So, you know, when the US launches a national security strategy, which say that the European civilization, is dying, more or less and will be unrecognizable within the next 20 years. They want to stand up and push back because in their minds they think that Europe is the beacon of democracy. The rest of the world should emulate them. This is how they think. Do they fear that U.S. troops will leave Europe?

Yes, very much so, because that is the end of an 80-year-old, 80-year period. That's the end of the political West. But the national security strategy also calls for cultivating the opposition in Europe, the ones who are opposing this destructive policies which the Trump administration condemns. So this is also something that worries the Europeans because we thought that we were sitting at the table with the Americans. We're going to do regime changes around the world. And now some are worried that regime change comes to us because it's not as if this would be a very difficult task. These leaders you refer to, Merz, Macron, Starmer, they are widely unpopular.

They're not liked very much. This is the pursuing policies which have very little support. They even don't devote a lot of time to domestic policies. Everything is foreign policy. Everything is Russia, Russia, Russia, and they ignore, to large extent, the national interest. You look at Germany, they, you know, the ban Russian gas, which is necessary for the country to survive. But British, sorry, German industries still, they're following the Russian gas. When this Russian gas is sent to China, the German companies, they follow.

They set up a business in China instead. So a lot of the things that they're good as governments are doing makes very little sense at all. And that's the painful reality they refuse to accept. If you want prosperity in Europe, if you want security in Europe, you do have to include the Russians. There's nothing, you can't get around this. But if you're going to include the Russians, then you don't have a. common enemy and then yeah the whole NATO format for security in Europe begins to collapse professor Dzen these conversations you and I have I must tell you they get

more and more interesting to me and are more and more informative and I'm deeply and profoundly grateful for them for your intellect and for your time thank you again we'll look forward to seeing you next week thank you look forward to it sure all the best to you and coming up But 1.45 today, do you believe that a former senior ranking member of the Drug Enforcement Administration was just arrested in New York for distribution of drugs and money laundering and the federal judge denied bail? Do you believe that Benjamin Netanyahu might actually get his pardon? Who else? Max Blumenthal, 145, Judge Napolitano, for judging freedom.

Thank you.