Judging Freedom - Prof. Glenn Diesen : Why Is NATO Threatening Russia?

Episode Date: October 15, 2026

Prof. Glenn Diesen : Why Is NATO Threatening Russia?See 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? 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? Judge Andrew Napolitano here for judging freedom. Today is Thursday, October 15th, 2006, Professor Glenn Deeson is back with us on, why is NATO threatening Russia? But first this. Throughout history, governments have rarely surrendered power voluntarily. They seek more control over our money, our movements, and ultimately our freedoms. That's why it's smart to understand your legal options before you need them. I'd like to recommend a free special report from McKell Thorpe, founder of expat money, for more than 26, years, McKell has lived as an expat, helping families, entrepreneurs, and investors build a legal

plan B through overseas residency and second citizenship. McCel's free report, Plan B residences and instant citizenships explains some of the best plans available. If preserving your freedoms and expanding your options are important to you, get your free report at expatmoney.com slash judge. Be sure to use my link in the description so that Mikkel knows you're a judging freedom fan. That's expatmoney.com slash judge. Professor Deason, welcome here. Before we get to why is NATO threatening Russia? Why is Donald Trump threatening to use the mother of all bombs, conventional, not nuclear, on Iran? Why is he threatening?

it now. CNN is reporting what this bomb does. The largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal for the first time in the conflict with Iran would mark a notable escalation, even though there are doubts over how effective it would be in accomplishing any of Trump's stated strategic objectives or tipping the balance of the war, but it would kill thousands. Well, I think, yeah, the easy answer would be a show of strength. I don't think there's much strategy anymore in terms of how to deal with Iran. That is the assumption all along has been if we just send a powerful enough signal and, well, cause enough destruction, then somehow the Iranians will bow to pressure.

I often made the point that I think it fails to appreciate that. again, if you're going to assess Iran as a threat that you look at their intentions first and their capabilities. And if you look at the intentions, they see this existential threat that they can't give in. I mean, no matter how much of Iran's being destroyed, all of this demonstrates to the Iranians that they can't actually capitulate. So again, I think there's been a key mistake of the Trump administration that is translating all this. Well, you can call them battlefield victories, but essentially destroyed. killing leaders, destroying its military hardware. They're translating this into political victory is something very different.

And I don't see that they're able to do this. But again, what else is there at this point? I think it's also the war, but also, of course, the midterms are also important here. That is important to signal to the American public that he's on top of it, that the Iranians are crumbling. Here he is gloating. This is two nights ago. Wait till you see what we do to Iran. You know, and you're going to see people cheering and applauding for it. But I've got to think that those people are far more concerned about what it costs them to fill up their automobiles with fuel and to put food on their tables and what their mortgages are going to cost if they're in the looking for a home, then they are with the failure. of the Trump foreign policy administration and how powerful it can be. But here he is with this gloat, Chris, number 11.

They said, sir, you're the hottest country anywhere in the world. We're the hottest country in the world. Oh, wait till you see what we do to Iran. We're gonna do a number. Well, you see, they're just waiting. They're waiting. Wait do you see what we do to Iran? Because we sort of had it.

You know, we've had it. But you know, it doesn't matter. The big thing is they were not going to have a nuclear weapon and then they won't. That's buried under thousands of tons of rock. But we're respected again. It's hard for me to believe that the U.S. is respected, Professor Deez. And as Donald Trump even come close to achieving any of the military objectives that he and the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense set out before they began this war on February 28th?

No, but I think, again, The main signal he's sending out is that the US is the one in control. So in other words, we've had it. In other words, the reason why they haven't won yet is because they simply have exercised patients with Iran, but now their patience is running out. That is not the state of the war. That is the US has effectively run out of options. It wanted to initially go for a decapitation strike.

It didn't help. Indeed, I would argue that Iran got more hawkish leaders. so also have less faith in the ability to actually strike a deal with the US. It was going to knock out the military and have it surrendered. They didn't work either. They proved that they have the sufficient military capabilities, that the industrial potential was translated into great resilience. So I don't see exactly what it's talking about.

And again, everything is a big narrative, same as being the hottest country. have this new index which came out, the CCI in the US, which they measured since 1951, I think, how people and businesses, what kind of confidence they have to the economy. It's the lowest than it's ever been before. I mean, so how can you have Americans struggling the lowest confidence, you know, in the last 75 years, and at the same time argue that it's the hottest country ever? Again, it's how you measure an economy. Is it simply by how the stock market is doing?

you can say the same with the war against Iran. You simply measure based on how much death and destruction you can levy against the enemy. And, you know, I fail to see this translated into something tangible. But again, narrative control is quite important, especially when you have a midterm election coming up. Let's move over to Europe, Professor Dieson, where you are. What was the reaction in Europe when British Prime Minister, Andy Burnham said that the six people arrested outside a royal airfield where American jets were stored were part of a terrorist group financed by Iran. He didn't offer any evidence. They didn't offer any

evidence in court and all six are out on bail. So who would believe what he said? It's October, which means it's Cybersecurity Awareness Month and cybersecurity isn't just for big tech companies. With over $3.5 billion lost to scams in the U.S. last year, protecting yourself matters too. As someone with an active online presence, my privacy is really important to me. That's why our sponsor, Delete Me, is celebrating this month by giving you a few quick tips to help you up your security game. Tip number one, when you get an unexpected email that looks legitimate, check the sender's domain before clicking links or opening attachments. Scammers will often use fake domains that trick you into clinton. clicking a malicious link. Tip number two, getting lots of spam calls, don't answer them.

Answering can provide a signal that your number is active, which then gets your number on even more lists, making the problem worse. Tip number three, search the internet regularly to see what personal information is publicly available. Delete me can help by monitoring data broker sites, removing your information, and make sure it stays removed throughout the year. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to join DeleteMe.com slash freedom and use promo code Freedom at the checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to join deleteme.com slash freedom and enter code freedom at checkout. That's join deleteme.com slash freedom code freedom.

No, exactly. I mean, in the UK, they will use terrorism laws to apprehend you, stop you at the airport. If you posted something offensive on media, they will send the police to your door if you said something like Palestine, free Palestine. So this is, yeah, this is, yeah, I think it's nonsense at least. and again, it's not the only lie has been caught in. He just made this point because he wants to reverse Brexit

and get back into the EU. So he also made his comment that, well, actually, the Russians interfered in the Brexit referendum, suggesting that the result was illegitimate, which opens up for the UK joining the EU again. And essentially he's been now receiving so much pushback because there has been investigation.

There has been no evidence of Russia interfering in the Brexit referendum. And so why is saying this now? Is there new evidence? And they won't even refer to it. So I think the latest you saw the MI5 chief come out and say that there was no evidence of it. So it's all, again, it's the same with Iran.

We're divorcing ourselves from the real world and it's all about narratives. And I think that's the same. They would like to, well, again, push the narrative that they're under attack by, the Russians, they're under attack by the Iranians. I think it's a political leadership that doesn't know what to do, and it's trying to rile up the population for war. I guess you were not surprised when our friend and colleague Ian Proud, a former British diplomat, assigned to Moscow.

He was with you at the Valdai Discussion Club, and then he returned to Great Britain, was arrested and detained for three hours and his mobile devices were seized. I guess this didn't surprise you as repellent as it is. No, I think, well, I talked to him there and he said there was something that could be expected. Indeed, I know that he's not the only one most British who will face this threat if they will go to a conference that's not approved by the government.

But of course, the fact that they went after Ian Proud, I find quite remarkable. Again, he worked as the economic counselor at the British Embassy, I think, between 2014 and 19. He was the one who signed under all of those sanctions against Russia. So he had a very key central role. But he had a change of heart or at least very uncomfortable with British foreign policy, not because he's siding with Russia, but because he believes this is not in. British interests to pursue these policies. So he's been quite vocal about going down this path,

because again, usually when, for diplomats, you can go three ways. Ideally, you would seek to harmonize interest and find ways to cooperate with a state. If that's not possible, then at least you move use your diplomats to manage competition. If that's not possible, then you have to choose conflict. But we skip the first two steps every time,

and we go directly to. conflicts with the Russian. So he believes this is not in the interest of the UK. So he went to a conference in in in Russia and he even told his former employees employer in the UK before he went just to do it in a open transparent way and it didn't help you come home and you have this also ceasing his electronic equipment and all this other treatment which I would interpret it as intimidation simply sending a clear signal do as you're told yeah same thing happened of course to our friend and colleague who'll be on a little later today max bloomenthal after max went public with what happened they called him up and said okay you can come and get your devices but now he has a lawsuit against them

for the unlawful arrest the unlawful seizure and the probable he doesn't know yet capture of the contents of those devices. This is the situation that Ian Proud is in. He has to now hire at his own expense experts to tell him whether or not the British authorities downloaded everything that's in there and whether they even put some sort of malware in. It's a terrible state of affairs. Switching gears slightly.

Here's the commanding general of NATO. threatening Russia. So we'll watch him first and then I'll ask you, what the heck is going on here? Chris cut number 17. No one should mistake our defensive nature for weakness or lack of resolve. Through our collective strength, we aim to deter and keep the peace. But if someone is foolish enough to attack us, we will fight. We will stop the attack and deny them the ability to achieve their objectives, whatever those may be. So it's a lot of it. It's important that allies continue to consult, think about how we might respond and make sure that we message clearly and concisely to the Russians where our red lines are.

And concisely to the Russians. Why on earth would he say something like this at a time like this? Well, it fits well with what most of the European leaders are saying these days. They're all essentially rhetorically preparing the public for war. They are, of course, trying to rearm as fast as possible. They're all talking about, especially in Germany, to be able to build up a large army, so they need more soldiers. And of course, this ongoing threat of Russia, this fearmongering nonstop,

is of course also intended to keep unity within Europe, because this is lacking at the moment. and also the political legitimacy of the leadership. I mean, the policies they've been pursuing has been very self-destructive. That is, they diminish the security, they diminish the prosperity. So if you look at some of the polls of Chancellor Merge or Macron,

I haven't seen Burnham, but I assume that he will also crash and burn very soon because they're not pursuing basic national interest. And the painful part they don't want to admit is if you want security in the United States, Europe, you can't really make an enemy out of the largest state in Europe, which is Russia. If you want prosperity, perhaps don't cut yourself off from the main supplier of cheap energy resources and also what was a very attractive and large and growing export market.

So you have now the Europeans reminded every day that we might have war, that our industries that we're deindustrializing, we're not competitive anymore, there's no real political role in the world for Europe and you have political leadership, which is increasingly in crisis and even facing legitimacy crisis. What makes them legitimate anymore if they're not actually delivering any basic national interest? So we have huge problems. And so I'm not sure if this is why they keep referring to, well, essentially threatening war with Russia. But something interesting in that clip was said, though, if they decide to attack and whatever objectives, that Russia then might have.

Well, that's the real question. And is it, why would Russia attack? What possible objectives can I have? They kept spinning up this narratives that, well, perhaps they want to seize Poland or even march on Berlin. But what for? What is waiting for them there? This population that doesn't want them, there's no resources.

What would be the point? The only point I can imagine them wanting to strike at Europe would be to either do sabotage missions against the weapon producers, which are killing Russians every day, or it could be to restore deterrence because NATO continues to go up the escalation ladder. We are directly involved in striking and attacking Russia. The Russians see it as a top priority to restore their deterrence at some point,

which means that they might have to strike. But they can't say this because then you have to admit that we are at war with the Russians, and we don't want them to respond. So it's a very strange situation. And I guess, you know, it sounds really hawkish, but he fits in very well with the rest of the European leaders. I wonder how this went over in Europe. Chris, cut number 10. Excuse me, number four. Number four, Chris. It's October 10th, cut number four.

I suggest they get a new leader who can make a deal because he could have made many deals and for some reason he'd ever does. And let me go a step further. If I were president, you wouldn't have ever had that war. That war would have never started. It should have never started. You wouldn't have lost 30% of your country already. You've lost 30% of your country, and you've had over a million people killed. Between the two of them, over two million people killed.

That's a war that should have never started. And I think it's time for Ukraine to get a new president. Now, how did that go over? with Zelensky's European backers? Well, the Europeans are, of course, very upset. And I've heard from several European leaders more or less that, you know, if, if Trump is backing down or, you know, because of what he said, that only increases our support for Ukraine. So it will have the opposite effect, which is nonsense, of course.

They can't fill the issues of the United States. But that would very well fit the overall strategy of the US, because Trump has already made it clear. He wants to outsource this war to the Europeans, they should carry the load because this is a European war, not American. That's kind of the logic. So, you know, so if the Europeans want to step up their commitments, sacrifice more of their economy, give up the last weapons to have, you know, that would be, I guess, okay for Trump. I do find myself agreeing with Trump, but for, I guess, all the wrong reasons. That is, you know, I think the reason why Trump has been doing this to some extent is because,

again, the midterms are coming up. People will blame him for the high gas prices, and this is because this is mainly deriving from the war against Iran, which is his war. But he's presenting the Ukraine war, not as an American war. Again, here I would disagree with him. I think the U.S. had a key role in starting this war. But as long as this can be presented as a conflict between Ukraine and Russia,

where Ukraine is making the decision to strike. Russian refineries against the will of Trump, then it's suddenly the high gas prices is no longer his fault. It's Zelensky's fault. So again, I think this is false. It's primarily this gas prices is derived from what's happening in Iran. But also, I don't know why Trump says, you have many theories, I guess. One would be that he's simply lashing out at Zelensky because Zelensky was very critical of Trump for making this deal with the Russians. And again, you don't want your proxy to speak down to you in this way,

especially when strength is restoring the strength as a recipe for making America great. Again, it's essentially what Trump is communicating. He could also see that the war is now, that Ukraine is now on its last leg, and this is falling apart very quickly. So he wants to further divorce the United States from this conflict. And I guess my third hypothesis would be that this is simply Trump's negotiation. tactic. It's referred to as a swing strategy. You don't want to marry yourself completely to one side because then you don't have any space for maneuver. If all sides believe that he might flip

tomorrow, then everyone is more likely to make concessions to the US because, you know, the Russians, if they finally have Trump saying what they like, okay, how long will this last? They have to make some concessions. The Europeans will also have to make concessions and of course Helensky because they don't know where it's going to be tomorrow. So I think, I think, you know, it could be all of the above, but this is, of course, changing the war itself. You know, Zelensky is perceived as corrupt and incompetent. He's also perceived as a tool of CIA, MI6, and the bandarist crowd around him. And, of course, he's despised by the Kremlin.

he's probably the best thing for the Russians to have a person like that in charge. I mean, if Trump really wanted him to go, what does he call up the director of the CIA and say, bring your people home tomorrow? No, well, that's it. That's why I find the whole thing a bit strange, because if the U.S. wanted to pull the plug on this war, it's the main one that providing the weapons, the logistics. It's offering the targeting. It's, you know, without intelligence that the U.S. offer, you know, the war would come to a very quick end.

So I'm not sure how much of this is theater. But regarding Zelensky's role in this war, I think you're right. I mean, I think the Russian thinking is what, well, allegedly, Napoleon once said, is, you know, if your enemies, don't disturb your enemy if it's making a mistake. Right. But again, Selensky has been, I mean, manipulated and transformed over the year. People often forget that he was elected in 2019 on a peace platform. He was going to make peace with the Russians, Donbassi.

He was going to implement the Minsk agreement. But then he had Western NGOs essentially put red lines that he shouldn't be allowed to do any of the things he asked for. And also you had this far right militias trained in armed by NATO countries, which also threatened his life very openly. So I would add in which the Ukrainian media covered very well, where he had to stand in front of camera and telling the people, I'm not, what if I say?

He said something, yeah, I'm not a weak fool. I'm the president of Ukraine. I mean, the whole thing was quite sad. But look at where he is now compared to 2022. You know, the economist interviewed him back in March of 2022, and he was making the point right before he decided to walk away from the Istanbul talks that many countries in the West, they wanted a long war with Russia because there's an opportunity to weaken a strategic rival.

And he said, even if this call comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives and the destruction of Ukraine itself. So he knew what they were going for. And he took that deal at some point anyways. I think the deal essentially was, if you decide to choose war, we will support you till the end. And also you will be our new Churchill. And that's essentially how we treated him. So he's always been corrupt. It's just that we covered it up for him.

They always had high casualties. We covered it up. And they always had brutal conscription. But again, it's not something we also shouldn't talk about because anything that reduces public support in the war is hushed up in the West. Chris, cut number seven and then cut number eight back to back. How many casualties? 43,000 each month now.

Really? Can you go? On the Russian side alone. On the Russian side alone. And how many are you losing on the Ukrainian side? I can't cheer. And now you have a situation where President Trump announced a energy ceasefire, and within hours, Vladimir Putin launches an absolute bombardment of Ukraine

aimed directly at your energy. Do you feel betrayed by what has been happening? Really, yes, really, between us. But it's a little bit more complicated than just my emotions or my feelings. Yes, it depends not on me. I mean, our country has to survive. Well, I think he's on his last leg. Colonel McGregor thinks that the Russian military will be in Kiev by Christmas time. And Ritter doesn't see how Keeve can get through a winter without any heat. Yeah, no, I don't, well, I'm careful to put a timeline on anything because, again,

I think the Ukrainians have held on for much longer than I assumed. I mean, the extent of their resilience, I think I underestimated along with many others. Part of this, of course, is the willingness of NATO to continue to escalate, send more money, and of course, Zelensky to send more men. But about the numbers he provided, of 43,000, I mean, recently they talked about 30, now it's grown to 43. These numbers make no sense at all. and they're not supported by any credible evidence.

But again, we are the constant theme there is we're in an information war. And as long as he can sell to the Western public that we're killing 43,000 Russians a month, the West will keep the war going because that's, again, as Selensky himself said, four and a half years ago, that's the main point to weaken a strategic rival. But, you know, why not round it up to 100,000? Where does these numbers come from? haven't seen any credible source offering this. And indeed, when you have this handover of fallen soldiers,

usually you have the Ukrainians handing over like 30, 40 Russians, and the Russians hand over like 1,000 Ukrainians. It kind of makes sense if you look at who's dominating the skies, the amount of air power. So it's, no, I wouldn't take that very serious. and the same as this comment about the energy ceasefire. Both Ukrainians and the Russians said that there is no energy ceasefire. When Trump was confronted by it, by a journalist saying,

well, no one seems to recognize that there is an energy ceasefire. His answer was, well, there is one because I said so. I mean, this is not diplomacy. This is just nonsense. So, you know, the fact that the Russians would just bow and agree to ceasefire because Trump just unilaterally said it, it's nonsense. I think they're not going to fall for these things anymore. Are you aware of what Colonel McGregor has reported

about the arrest of between a half dozen and a dozen Russian generals on corruption? If this is true and Colonel McGregor has sources that he can rely on, it's not been covered in the West at all. No, he did tell me, and I haven't heard it from other places and I haven't seen any reports. I'm not disputing it, but, yeah, if it happened,

it would be very interesting or also be very interesting why the Western media wouldn't jump on it because that seems like something they would want to report on. So, yeah, I'm not sure. Again, it is possible again the problem in this war there's so much so much the information war is so intense that it impacts the ability to get trustworthy news so i definitely worth following up on because if there is you know if there are corrupt generals military leaders

then it would make sense if they're going after them but but this seems like a quite a big thing so Well, Colonel McGregor has better sources than me probably. Yes, and then I do. But it is a head scratcher. According to Colonel McGregor, the magnitude is huge, and it may even implicate defense minister Shoygo, who's a longtime personal friend and colleague of President Putin. Why that's not been covered in the West is really a head scratcher.

Professor Deeson, thank you very much. We missed you. I know you've been traveling. One of these days I'll ask you about your time at the Valdei conference of what you thought of President Putin. I watched the speech with an English translator. I thought he was brilliant. But we'll chat about that next time.

Thank you, Professor Dees. And always a pleasure, my dear friend. Great, see you again, Judge. Thank you. Sure. And coming up later today at 2 o'clock this afternoon on all of this, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson at 3 o'clock, the Golden Boy, Max Blumenthal. This is the title of my column this week, A Culture of Death.

And there's one of my favorite quotes from Voltaire. It is forbidden to kill. Therefore, all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. It's about the death penalty and the crazy, crazy decision by President Trump and Secretary of Defense Hegseth to use a firing squad on a man in a wheelchair and to live stream. We'll see if that happens, but you can get that column. It's out this morning. Thank you for watching.

We'll see you this afternoon. Judge Napolitano for judging Freedom.