Judging Freedom - Prof. Glenn Diesen : Will Putin Attack His NATO Tormentors?

Episode Date: July 23, 2026

Prof. Glenn Diesen : Will Putin Attack His NATO Tormentors?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? 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, July 23rd, 2006, Professor Glenn Dieson will be with us in just a moment. How much patience does President Putin have? Is he contemplating striking back at his NATO tormentors? But first, this. You know, just a few years ago, if you told someone you were stocking up on emergency food, that would have called you a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist, not anymore. We've all seen supply chain chaos, devastating natural disasters, inflation, war, civil unrest,

and preparedness as concerned. non-mainstream. That's why we're so excited to partner with my Patriot supply, America's original Patriot Preparedness Company. Right now, they're celebrating America's 250th birthday with one of the best deals they've ever offered. Two hundred and fifty dollars off their best-selling six-month emergency supply of food, available now at prepare with the judge.com. This is the exact same survival brand trusted by over three million American families. Why? Because they deliver 2,000 calories a day. lasts up to 25 years without refrigeration, and it contains no GMOs or artificial colors or flavors, and you can count on it to keep your family fed no matter what happens. Even at full price,

it's still the best decision you'll make for your family. With this $250 discount, it's a no-brainer. Go to preparewiththejudge.com to get your emergency food kit today. That's preparewithajudge.com. Professor Deezan, welcome here. My dear friend missed you for the two weeks that I was away. We all missed you. We all missed each other, but it's nice to be back, as we say, in America, in the saddle back working. Before we get to President Putin and NATO, what is the view from Europe? And of course, what is your personal view of Trump's resumption of bombing Iran, what our mutual friend Alistair Crook calls Iran War 3.0? Well, I think most European governments will be happy to see regime change and installing some pro-Western government that would align or, you know, be a puppet government for the West.

But I think more and more getting the, well, embracing the common sense that this isn't going to happen. And I think there's a growing concern as well about what this revamping the war is actually going to do, because Europeans especially have made themselves very vulnerable. by cutting themselves off from Russian energy and also fertilizers. So now they become extremely dependent on energy from the Middle East. And again, this has been a huge disruption. And again, in the Iran War 3.0, we now see that it's widening the war as well. So, for example, a possible blockade now on the Red Sea, even striking ships, the Saudi ships, which we saw now,

within the past 12 hours in the Red Sea as well. All of this suggests that the war is not just intensifying, but it's widening, it's pulling in more actors. So all of this is going to have a very negative impact on the Europeans. So I think there's a lot of concerns. And of course, for the Europeans, their main objective now remains to pull the United States into a long war against Russia that is pulled deeper in. America is already there.

So anything that distracts the U.S. from the European battlefield is seen as problematic. So I think there's mixed feelings because, I mean, the anti-Iranian propaganda is as strong in Europe as it is in the United States. Wow. Is the anti-Iranian propaganda in Europe as strong as the anti-Russia propaganda is? Because Iran, it's inconceivable that Iran could pose a threat to Europe. Yeah, no, the hatred for Russia is, well, it's obviously that's the number one. And I think Russia always had a special place in Europe as the boogeyman that is, you know, it's in human nature to form, to organizing groups. We tend to organize in-groups and out-groups.

The Russians have always been the main, seen as a key rival. They've always been the east to the west. You know, they've been portrayed as the barbarians to the civilized. ones. They were the Asians to the Europeans. So they always played the outgroup. And of course, this also only intensified during the Cold War when they were the communists to our capitalism. And now after the Cold War, we've done our very best to make sure that all crises or all conflicts are framed as being about liberal democracy versus autocracies in which Russia is then the big threat standing at the gates of Europe.

So, no, the hatred of Russia will always have a special place in Europe as opposed to hatred towards Iran. Back to Iran. Are you surprised or do you have an explanation for the fact that this is just the, appears to be just the U.S. doing this bombing, the Israelis are not taking part this time around? Well, I think it's favorable for the Israelis. They got pumbled pretty hard during the two firsts. ground. So for them to sit this one out and allow the Americans to, well, to absorb the cost, it looks beneficial for the Israelis. Keep in mind, Israel is a fairly small country as well. Iran can inflict a lot of damage on it. So they're sitting this one out, I'm, it's possible, there's a possibility that the US would like to have the Iranians join in to intensify the bombing. But yeah, it's, it's a, it is a bit strange.

Wow. Trump threatens like a mafia boss, yet his understanding of this is obviously seriously diminished or even non-existent. I mean, what conceivable argument to the Americans have that they're bombing, which failed to produce regime change, failed to produce begging at the negotiating table by the Iranians. last time around, we'll work this time around. Yeah, it's also unclear what the actual objective is, because initially there was talk about regime change. They did a little victory lap once they killed Ayatollah, I'm assuming that once he was dead, everything would fall apart. Apparently, there wasn't any regime change at all, then they began to pivot into other measurements to declare success.

Or they obliterated the nuclear program, and proven that it wasn't. Then the goal was to undermine its ballistic missile program and it was argued that this had been done. And no, now it seems to have shifted towards the objective is to open up the Strait of Hermose, but that's also a strange objective for this war because that the strait was wide open

before the United States attacked. So I guess the stated objectives of this war will shift to degree, the U.S. needs to find a way of declaring victory. Could the White House, the National Security Council, and the Pentagon have been so stupid, so blind, so obtuse that they didn't consider what would happen to the Strait of Hormuz as a consequence of the U.S. and Israeli attempts to destroy the Iranian regime? Well, you would think so. Again, I'm not sure what

they actually think because whenever you have a war, it's the goal of the war propaganda is to sell what is essentially geostrategic goals that is knocking out a key rival in the region. The propaganda will sell this as a war of altruism that is helping to liberate Iranians of freedom.

But I think all of this has gone out the window when Trump talked about annihilating entire civilization or P.E. Texeth, talks about death and destruction from above every single day, all day, long. So I think that they overestimated what they could actually achieve. Again, when you assess an adversary or a threat, you will always look at intentions and capabilities. The thing with the Iranians is their intentions were should be clear, that is they're fighting an existential threat. They're not trying to simply oppress women or it's not simply about the government staying in power. What the US wants to do is knock out Iran, same as the Israel. this ideally put in place a puppet regime, but that wouldn't be able to unify the government, for example, bringing back the old monarchy of the Shah. So most likely it would end up like

another Syria, Libya fragmented and destroyed. So for the Iranians, this is an existential threat. If we were honest about this, we would know that Iranians would not concede that they would fight till the bitter end. And not only this, they wouldn't be willing to go back to the old status quo, 47 years of sanctions and the possibility being bombed at any time. They would want to hold on to the Strait of Hermuz and remove the threat that is the US base of the region. And the second thing, of course, you look at when you assess threat is capabilities. And it should also have been obvious that Iran is not some backward country, small country which can easily be bombed.

It has a huge military capability. All this long-range missiles, very powerful. And also the drone program. And all of this is protected well underground. So if we had been honest about who the adversary was, about their intentions and capabilities, I think it should have been very predictable exactly what the Iranians would do. And indeed, I had the Iranians on my podcast as well before the US attack, explaining exactly what they would do. They would shut down the Strait of removes.

They would annihilate all the US bases in the region and they would take it into their own hand to enhance security because they don't trust any diplomatic deal they get with the United States anymore. So the only way they can have peace now in the future is to hold on to the Strait of Hermuz, they remove the bases of the United States. Then they can begin to shift the region to their favor in a way that enhanced security. Right. And Trump's war will just seriously diminish the reach of the American Empire in the Middle East, something that he could not have intended.

Although if you heard him on the campaign trail, it sounded like, That's what he wanted to happen. It's a hell of a way for it to happen. There are 20 American troops that are dead already and a few hundred that are injured. Let's switch gears, Professor. Over the weekend, our mutual friend, I almost called him professor,

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, the Dean of World Diplomats, as we and all those watching us now know, made some very serious statements. Europe is erratic. Its leaders are making no sense. The Russians are prepared for war. The Russians don't trust the United States. They feel deceived by Anchorage. Nothing good came out of Anchorage. Where are you surprised? I'm summarizing and paraphrasing, of course. You might have your own slightly different nuance of what he said. Were you surprised to hear that from Sergei Lavrov? And if, If he does say something like that, does he clear it with President Putin first? Well, I assume he would.

He doesn't simply speak on his own behalf. He has a key position in the Russian government. So I assume a lot of these comments would have to be approved. I mean, again, he can't run his own, broadcast his own opinions as the position of the Russian Federation. But it doesn't surprise me. it fits within a wider development, that is the Russians are now preparing, I think, to go up the escalation ladder. They've seen the Europeans for four and a half years boycott diplomacy, refusing to even talk to the Russians. They see the United States well ended their boycott

of diplomacy under Trump, but then apparently engaged in fake diplomacy. That is, the US put forth a proposal in Anchorage, and then the Russians accepted it, and now the Americans are walking it back. So it looks as if this is fake diplomacy, similar to what was done with Iran. So over the past few weeks, you've seen many things come out of Russia, that is from Maria Sakharova. She made the point that the Estonians, you know, they, well, you have this leak or some Russian pranksters,

got an advisor to the president to admit that Estonia was participating in the attacks on St. Petersburg, at least assisting. And Maria Sakharov said this made a NATO country participant, spent in terrorism against Russia. If you would say this and do nothing, that would undermine your own deterrent. So it looks as if this is an indication that they're willing to start to do something. And also they made it quite clear that all that the Europeans now are bragging very openly about all the money they're pouring into long-range missiles and drones

and how the goal is to steep to attack deeper and deeper inside Russia to hit the economic or military. infrastructure and to weaken Russia. Again, this is all done in the open. So I think the Russians are reaching the conclusion that at some point enough is enough and they will have to strike back. And I think we're coming towards that point. And I think the comments by Lavrov can be interpreted as a warning towards this end. Do you think that the Kremlin would consider attacking munitions plants and NATO nations that are producing drones and armaments making their way to Ukraine?

I don't see it happening right now, but yes, it is conceivable simply because the Russians have now said that this is a legitimate target. Again, why would you say this if you're not willing to follow through if they, if they make this claim and do nothing, their deterrent would be undermined even further? And indeed, when the war began, the Western countries began to supply a lot of weapons, but it was all intended to fight within the Ukrainian battlefield. Then the NATO countries began to very openly express the objective of the need to move the war into Russia so that the Russians would feel the war. Well, now we're in this position where the war is limited to Ukraine and Russia,

and somehow the West is promoting how they're setting dates for possible future war with Russia. They say they're building up this powerful military, which will be used against Russia. They're giving the weapons to the Ukrainians to strike Russia. So no, I think it's very possible that the Russians essentially will reach their conclusion now that why are we allowing all this European weapons manufacturers to operate in a safe zone, saying that, well, we're in Europe, so this is a NATO country, so you can't strike here. but we will do our very best to strike weapon plants within Russia. So I think the Russians are willing to strip the Europeans of their safe zone status,

just like the Europeans stripped Russian territory as being a safe zone. So, no, I think we're getting there very, very quickly. Here's one of the great clowns of all time, but he is the former British Prime Minister just two days ago, Boris Johnson, Chris No. 4. What we've got to do is get this thing over. And one of the reasons it isn't over is that Putin doesn't really know from the West what we want. And we won't declare that we really, really want Ukraine as part of the Western Committee of Nations. So a group of countries.

So NATO, for instance, is a crucial thing. Is he actually suggesting that Putin would go along with the remnant of Ukraine, that part which is not recaptured by the Russians, joining NATO after all of this? But it seems to be what is suggesting. But no, this is what the war is about. It's about NATO expansion. We always knew this was a key theme already from the 90s that if NATO would ever try to expand into Ukraine, this will be considered an existential threat by Russia. And this is what would spark a war.

I mean, CIA director, William Burns, even wrote that famous memo, and yet means Nietz, back in 2008, when future membership was promised to Ukraine, where he made the warning that if we try to pull NATO into Europe, to pull Ukraine into the NATO orbit, Russia, you would probably have a civil war in Ukraine, which we did, and Russia would then intervene on the side of the eastern Ukrainians, which it also did. And he added that Russians would be reluctant to do so, but they would feel compelled to intervene because, again, this is an existential threat to them. So one doesn't have to agree, one doesn't have to like it, but this is how Russia sees security concerns. It would be as if China or Russia moved into Mexico and set up his missiles there. just considered to be unacceptable, and that's why they're responding.

So the idea that, oh, Russia simply doesn't know that we want to have Ukraine into NATO, that's what the war is all about. So, no, this isn't going to happen. And again, I think this is what the Europeans are doing as well to sell a long war. They keep saying, well, Russia must accept a peace. They don't actually want to call Russia, talk to the Russians. And when they're demanding peace, what they're actually saying is we want an immediate ceasefire. And once there's a ceasefire, our troops will move into Ukraine and we'll have a chance to fill up the country with drones and missiles.

So no, they're selling essentially a long war. And as you said, Boris Johnson, he's to a large extent a key architect behind this. Keep in mind that it was back in March and April of 2022 when you had the Istanbul talks, in which, yeah, Boris Johnson was the one who talked Zelensky into abandoning the peace deal with the Russians and instead choose war. And afterwards, Boris Johnson, he made speeches, wrote op-eds about how we need strategic patience, which is, you know, what you call a long war. And, yeah, that's what it's been selling ever since. So essentially demanding that Ukraine should join NATO is another way of saying they won't. be any peace will fight to the last Ukrainian.

Here's Johnson, if you can imagine making even less sense than in the previous clip, it's from the same interview two days ago. You're so diplomatic. Americans call him a clown, and you don't use that language, but I know you're guessing you're probably thinking it. Even looks like a clown. Whatever, Chris, cut number two. Get it clear.

What have we got to lose? You couldn't say Putin's going to escalate. I mean, how much more escalation can he do? He's bombing apartment blocks. He's trying to recruit as many people as he can. He's in a desperate hole. Escalation isn't a problem. What needs to happen is we need to flip the switch in his mind

and convince him that geostrategically, it's game over. He's tried. He's got to defend it now to his people, but he's got to end. I mean, that's not even conceivable. Is it that the West could convince President Putin that geostrategically the war is over and NATO will prevail in Ukraine? If Putin were to accept that, he'd be Mr. Putin, not President Putin, the next day. No, exactly. And I think there's a key problem in this thinking is they don't accept the fact that Russia sees this

as an existential threat. This is more important because if it's not an existential threat, yes, you can escalate against Russia and Russia would then, okay, maybe feel compelled to back down because the cost will be too high. But if it's an existential threat, there is no capitulation. As you said, it's impossible for any Russian leader to accept what Boris Johnson suggesting. So the only response to, again, flip the switch or escalate on NATO side would be further

escalation on the Russian side. And the idea that there's no more escalation possible for Russia, I mean, this is the big debate they're having now in Russia. That is what they have, the main mistake they have done over the past four and a half years is allow their deterrence to collapse. The collapse of the Russian deterrence, this is the key threat now to Russia. And what that means is NATO now feels they can strike within Russia with impunity. And it began very slowly, as you know I've spoken about before. First they sent some tanks and then they sent some High Mars, some F-16, some long-range missiles. First, they said it has to be limited to Ukraine.

Now they're talking about striking as deep as possible into Russia. We know that it's NATO money, NATO weapons, NATO intelligence, war planners, targeting, and NATO contractors, all doing the work. So the main thing for Russia now is not simply to bomb Ukraine, which they see as the proxy, but the main war is a proxy war between NATO and Russia. So Russia is now under great pressure to ask. escalate against NATO. That is, why not strike some of these factories within European NATO?

Why not strike some logistics centers? Again, they have the weapons now. They've been stockpalling Oresniks. They've said that these are legitimate targets. The only thing is it's a massive risk. Once you strike NATO, it can go two ways. Either NATO will back off or we will very quickly go up that escalation ladder. And if we do, the Russians have prepared their weapons.

They even changed their nuclear doctrine if this would be necessary, if there's an existential threat to the Russian Federation. So there's a huge possibility for escalation. The idea that NATO can just escalate further against the Russians and, okay, well, then Russia has no chance but to capitulate. I mean, he should pick up a history book. The Russians aren't going to capitulate. They have many options. Unfortunately for us, all of them entail escalation and not just only against Ukraine. and we see them pummeling away at Kyiv, Odessa, Nikolaev, essentially blocking the ports.

They also have many opportunities of escalating against NATO. I mean, this is a real problem. But as long as we're not allowed in the West to admit that Russia sees this an existential threat, because in the West we consider this as a way of legitimizing the Russian invasion, then we can't appreciate the Russian logic here. But the Russian logic is sound the way they see the world. and it's quite predictable how they will behave if you accept how they see this war. Wow. Professor D.Zan, great analysis.

Terrific analysis, my dear friend. I know you're traveling, and I deeply appreciate you're taking out the time to join us. I look forward to resuming our regular weekly gatherings together next week. Safe travels, my dear friend. We'll see you in a week. Thank you, Judge. It's good to hurry back. Thank you. Coming up later today at 2 o'clock, our two kernels, and they're both sort of hot under the collar about what they're going to talk about.

At 2 o'clock, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, at 3 o'clock, Colonel Douglas McGregor. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.