Judging Freedom - Prof. John J Mearsheimer: How the West Provoked Russia

Episode Date: March 22, 2024

Prof. John J Mearsheimer: How the West Provoked RussiaSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

At Ritual, we know what goes into the holiday season. The potluck planning, the gift giving, the spreadsheets. So this new year, take a moment for yourself with science-backed support that puts you first. So whether you're focusing on supporting foundational health with a clean vegan multivitamin or supporting your gut health with Symbiotic Plus, do it with 30% off your first month at ritual.com slash podcast. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Friday, March 22nd,

2024. My dear friend, Professor John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago joins us now. Professor Mearsheimer, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you. I'd like to start with the news of the day, which broke shortly before we came on air, and that is the United States offering a resolution to the Security Council of the United Nations demanding an immediate and extended ceasefire in Gaza, quite the opposite of what the United States has sought in the Security Council before, and it was vetoed by the Russians and the Chinese who didn't veto it last time. So there's a lot, in my view, and probably in yours, to unpack here. One, how could the United States have offered this without the Biden administration running afoul of the donor class and APEC and those folks. And two, you're going to see in a few minutes, Tony Blinken calling the Russian and Chinese veto cynical. It's the same veto he directed the United States ambassador to make last time around.

I give it to you. Well, I think with this show, it's come in terms of its unhappiness with Israel. Professor, we lost you for a couple seconds. If you can go back to the beginning, please. Okay. I think this shows you just how unhappy the United States has become with Israel and the extent to which it's willing to go to put pressure on Israel to end this conflict in Gaza. In February, about one month ago, the United States vetoed a very similar resolution that the Chinese and the Russians then supported. And here we have a situation where the Americans are putting forth a resolution that looks somewhat like the one that they vetoed last month. And now the Russians and the Chinese are vetoing our resolution because apparently the language

is not strong enough. But nevertheless, it is very strong language. And again, it just shows just how sick and tired the Biden administration is of what the Israelis are doing in Gaza. How could the Biden administration think it could get away with this, given the iron grip that the donor class, the Israeli donor class, the American Jewish donor class, has on the American government? Well, the fact is that the Biden administration is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If the Biden administration doesn't put an end to this war soon, and if it continues, if the war continues, the Biden administration's support inside the Democratic Party is going to diminish significantly and make it impossible for him to win reelection in the fall. Furthermore, he's already alienated huge numbers of Arab Americans.

And what he'd like to do now is start repairing that damage so that those Arab Americans, many of whom are concentrated in Michigan, change their mind about him by November. But the Biden administration has to do something from a purely political point of view to put an end to this war. But of course, that means that it'll take measures that will alienate the Israel lobby, and the Israel lobby will go to great lengths to make sure that Biden doesn't win in the fall. So again, he's in a damned if you do, damned if you don't. So he's choosing between the Israel lobby and its money and the Michigan Palestinians or Arabs or Muslims, whatever you want to call them, and their votes. There's at least 110,000 of them.

We know that from the people that voted none of the above in the Democratic primary. Well, he's walking a very fine line here. He's trying to sort of get out of this situation that he's in. And I think from his point of view, what he wants to do is get out of this situation as quickly as possible. He's going to suffer some political damage, but better he suffer that political damage now and then have a few months left to repair the damage that he's done on both sides. The question you have to ask yourself is whether he can get out of this mess that he's in. And my view is that he can't, that the Israelis simply won't cooperate with him in any meaningful way.

And this conflict is going to go on and it's going to do enormous political damage to him. Now, that doesn't mean that he'll necessarily be defeated in November. It's hard to say how that'll play itself out. But there's no question that this crisis in Gaza lessens his chances of prevailing over Donald Trump in the fall. Is there not a way, a surefire way for him to prevent the invasion of Rafah? Rafah, a city that had a quarter of a million people, now has five times that many people there. They were forced down from the north by Israelis. They said, go down, go down, go down, go down where it's safe. We're going to bomb the north. All he has to do is make a phone call and say, Bibi, that's it.

No more spare parts, no more jets, no more ammunition, no more help, no more advice, nothing. Well, what you're saying, he has, in theory, the leverage, the necessary leverage to tell Netanyahu that he cannot invade Rafah and get Netanyahu not to invade Rafah. I think there's no question that in theory, the leverage is there. The question is whether or not he can exercise that leverage in practice. And he can't, and he can't because of the lobby. The lobby makes it almost impossible for him to put really formidable pressure on the Israelis, to coerce the Israelis into acting in ways that are in the American national interest. What's very important to understand here is that no two countries ever have the same interests. This is the case where Israel and

the United States have very different interests. We have clashing interests. This is the case where Israel and the United States have very different interests. We have clashing interests. And what the lobby is doing here is the lobby is siding with Israel against the United States. And it is making it almost impossible, if not impossible, for Biden and his lieutenants to put really significant pressure on Israel. And we have that capability as you laid it out. Do you share my frustration when you hear a member of Congress refer to Israel as our closest ally? My argument is they're not an ally at all. Our relationship with them is not in the best interest of the United States. There's no treaty of alliance. It's an absolute misnomer. It's what AIPAC wants people to believe, but it's a misnomer to call us an ally of Israel.

Look, there is no question, and this crisis makes it manifestly clear, that Israel is an albatross around their neck, both from a strategic point of view and a moral point of view. I mean, we're talking here about the strategic dimension to this conflict, but you also want to remember that there's an important moral dimension. Because we are siding with Israel and providing Israel with almost unconditional support in its war against the Palestinians, we are complicit in a genocide. It just doesn't get much worse than that. You know, my friend Tom Woods, who's

a historian, often joked, and no matter who you vote for for president, you end up with John McCain. I think today you could say no matter who you vote for for president, you end up with a Jewish president, or at least a president who's wedded at the hip to Israel. Even Barack Obama, who wasn't loved by the Israelis, gave them what they wanted. I think you want to be very careful here not to use the word Jewish because it's important to emphasize that there are lots of Jews who are deeply opposed to what Israel is doing. Yes, yes.

Are in the forefront of arguing against Israel's behavior and share your view and my view on what's going on in this crisis. But the key point is that Israel's strongest supporters in the United States, many of whom are Jewish, but not all of whom are Jewish, are making it impossible for the Biden administration to act in smart ways, again, from both a strategic and a moral point of view. Here's Secretary Blinken. This is two and a half minutes long. Cut number two, Sonia. Just an hour and a half ago on the tarmac of the airport in Tel Aviv, as he's about to get on his American jet to fly home, talking about what was he trying to achieve. It's a Q&A. What was he trying to achieve at the United Nations? I'd

love your thoughts on this, Professor. Can you tell us in practical terms what the U.S. was trying to achieve with the resolution that was put forward at the United Nations today? And then on your conversations today, you described in broad strokes some themes that are familiar. I wonder whether you delivered or heard any messages today that are new and different from your past conversations here. So on the resolution, which got very strong support, but then was cynically vetoed by Russia and China, I think we were trying to show the international community a sense of urgency about getting a ceasefire tied to the release of hostages, something that everyone, including the countries that

vetoed the resolution, should have been able to get behind. The resolution, of course, also condemned Hamas. It's unimaginable why countries wouldn't be able to do that. But I think the fact that we got such a strong vote, despite the veto by two of the permanent members of the Security Council, again, is evidence and demonstration of the commitment, the conviction of countries around the world, notably on the Security Council, to see about getting the ceasefire, getting the release of hostages now. That's what the resolution said. That's what it called for. And I think it showed a strong commitment to that from many, many countries. With regard to the conversations we had, look, this is an ongoing process.

As I said, we really were focused on three things, the hostage negotiations, humanitarian assistance, and Rafah. And it was important that, again, we focus on all three things. We, I can't, I'm not going to get into the details of what we discussed, but I think from my perspective at least, these were important, candid conversations to have at a critical time on all three of those issues. Will it be isolated if it doesn't change its path?

Again, what I shared, and I think what they've heard from President Biden as well directly, is we have the same goals, the defeat of Hamas, Israel's long-term security. But a major ground operation in Raqqa is not, in our judgment, the way to achieve it. And we've been very clear about that. But most important, we have a senior team coming to Washington next week. We'll all be taking part in those discussions. We'll be able to lay out for them in detail. I started to do that today,

but it's important that the teams with all the expertise lay out in detail how those goals can best be accomplished with an integrated humanitarian, military, and political plan. We'll put all that on the table. Of course, we'll hear from them too. And we'll take it to next week. Professor, in my view, his words are fake. The previous resolution so that he instructed the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. that works for him to veto included condemnations of Hamas, he seems to have made no progress in what he was talking about, hostage relief, humanitarian aid to the Gazans, and no invasion of Rafah. Prime Minister Netanyahu said as recently as yesterday, we're going to invade. I'll let you take it from there.

Maybe you have a more charitable view of what he just said. No, I think what's amazing about that clip that you just showed is the body language. Yes, he looks like a scared rabbit. Forgive me for saying that. Yeah, I mean, it's really quite remarkable. What happened here is that when the conflict first broke out, and this is similar to what you see with regard to Ukraine, the Biden administration was full of enthusiastic support for Israel, and this is similar to what you see with regard to Ukraine. The Biden administration was full of enthusiastic support for Israel, and they thought that the policy that Israel was pursuing and that we were backing was going to pay huge dividends. And again, you saw the same thing in Ukraine. But what's happening now is that the Biden administration, and this includes Secretary

Blinken, fully understand that we are in really deep trouble. And if we have any hope of getting out of that trouble, what we have to do is get the Israelis to change their behavior. But the Israelis show no interest in changing their behavior. And very importantly, as was clear from Tony Blinken's comments, he did not put any real pressure on the Israelis to change their behavior. He said if you, you know, he didn't say if you go into Rafah, we're going to do X, Y, and Z. He just continually talks about how Israel and the United States are on the same page. They have the same interests, and we're working with the Israelis to make this clear and to make that clear. But this all goes nowhere because Netanyahu thumbs his nose at the Americans.

He doesn't care really what Biden or Blinken have to say. In the meantime, Professor, hundreds of thousands are close to starvation. Your colleague and my friend, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, has statistics showing the five levels of famine and the huge swaths of Gaza that are in level five, which means if they don't get food, starvation, death by starvation in the next week or so. Apparently, Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government don't care about that, and Tony Blinken doesn't care enough about it to do something about it. I mean, suppose we sent trucks there through Egypt. Is the IDF going to fire on American trucks? Well, it's hard to disagree with you. I mean, we're using starvation as a weapon. It's horrifying. It's sickening. I don't know what else to say. As you and I have talked about many times before, the Israelis are in the process of executing a genocide in Gaza. And we are complicit. And this is just more evidence of that. Here's a popular demand since a lot of the writers enjoy seeing the secretary of state at his worst. Cut number one, Sonia, here is from the same Q&A, Secretary Blinken purporting to give an update on the ceasefire talks.

Can you give us an update on the ceasefire talks in Doha? What is the latest that you've heard from the negotiators? And also today, Israel has announced a land seizure of 800 hectares in the occupied West Bank. Just when you are doing your visit here? What are your thoughts? So on the negotiations, I can't give you any more details other than to say that we're intensely engaged in them, working with the Qataris, working with the Egyptians, working with Israel. And we have teams in Doha.

And as I said, we've gotten it down to a few remaining gaps, but the closer you get to the goal line, the harder that last yard is. So there are some hard issues to work through, but we're determined to do everything we can to get there and to get people home. And the negotiators will be working intensely to see if we can get that done. I hadn't seen the news you referred to, but look, you know our views on settlement expansion. You know our views on everything from demolitions to evictions to other steps, unilateral steps that are taken

that make the already challenging prospect of two states even more distant. So I haven't seen the specifics of this, but anyone taking steps that makes things more difficult, more challenging this time is something that we would have a problem with. Tiny clarification. When you say we have teams, you mean U.S. has teams on the ground in Doha today? And can you just confirm the negotiations have begun, like they've been continuing this? I can't. it should be going going forward if not immediately now certainly in the hours ahead so the israelis uh seize and announce the seizure of land in the west bank from palestinian owners violation of all sorts of laws while the secretary of state is in Tel Aviv trying to negotiate with the Israeli war cabinet. I guess they're thumbing their nose at the

Secretary. Yeah, but this is nothing new. When Biden was vice president, he once went to Israel and they did the same thing to him. This is just the way the Israelis behave. They act with impunity, and they can do that because they know the lobby will protect them. You know where you really see this, and this is, again, horrifying and sickening, is that the Israelis are posting all these videos of Israeli soldiers and Israeli aircraft killing innocent civilians, of all the terrible things they're doing to the Palestinians in terms of humiliating them and so forth and so on, you sort of say to yourself, why would the Israelis do this? This is just going to get them into a lot of trouble. But it doesn't get them into a lot

of trouble, especially with the United States, because the lobby protects them at every turn. Switch gears, Professor, to something I believe you said the other day, not on this show, but on the colleague's show. Can you make the argument, Professor Mearsheimer, that the West provoked Russia into this conflagration with Ukraine. I've been making that argument since 2014. In the West, most people believe that Vladimir Putin is principally responsible for the conflict in Ukraine, that he's an imperialist, he's bent on creating a greater Russia. His goal was to conquer all of Ukraine and incorporate it into greater Russia. And then he was going to do the same with other countries.

And he was eventually going to recreate the Russian empire. This is an argument that has no evidence to support it. And all of the evidence, in my opinion, shows that basically this war was largely a result of NATO expansion and the more general policy of trying to make Ukraine a Western bulwark on Russia's borders. Since April 2008, when we first announced that Ukraine would become part of NATO, the Russians have made it unequivocally clear that this is unacceptable, that they view Ukraine and NATO as an existential threat. And they would go to enormous lengths, including destroying Ukraine to prevent that from happening. And we nevertheless refused to address their security concerns. And we doubled down at

every turn to move to bring Ukraine into NATO. And the end result is that on February 24th, 2022, Putin invaded Ukraine. So we in the West are principally responsible for causing this conflict, not Vladimir Putin. The New York Times is reporting Friday evening in Moscow now. Several gunmen opened fire at a popular concert venue on the Moscow outskirts on Friday, Russia state news agencies reported. at the venue, at least 12 dead so far. Who knows if this is part of what we're talking about or some other crazy criminal act. But the Ukrainians themselves reported this morning that they expect an addition of another 100,000 Russian troops by mid-spring to the theater of war. Don't they know their days are numbered? It's over, Professor Mearsheimer. I would bet that most Ukrainians in their national security establishment or their foreign policy establishment understand that their days are numbered. I would

bet that most of the foreign policy elite in the West, not all of it, but most of it understands that Ukraine is going to lose this war and Russia is going to win. But at this point in time, they're unwilling to acknowledge that publicly, and they're flailing around looking for possible ways to produce a miracle so that Ukraine doesn't lose the war. I mean, this is what you see with the French when they talk about deploying ground troops into Ukraine. The French are desperate to avoid a Russian victory in Ukraine. But the fact is, Ukraine is going to lose and Russia is going to win. And a Russian victory in Ukraine can arguably be interpreted, disagree if you choose, of course, as a victory of Russia over NATO, can it not? Oh, there's no question about that. I mean,

Jens Stoltenberg, who is the head of NATO, has made that very point, as have numerous other people. No, it'll be a devastating defeat for NATO if Ukraine is to lose this war and Russia is to win a clear victory. The fact is we're doing everything but pulling the triggers and pushing the buttons in this war. We are up to our eyeballs in this war. It's not like we're on the sidelines and just helping the Ukrainians occasionally. We are deeply involved in this war. When I say we, we're talking about not just the United States, but the Europeans as well. We're talking about NATO. So NATO has a lot of skin in this game. And if the Russians win, it's going to be a defeat, not simply for Ukraine, but a defeat for the West as well.

And that's why we're desperate to find a way to avoid defeat. But that is not going to happen, in my opinion. Here's President Putin's response to this nonsense from President Macron. Cut number five, Sonia. We are ready to use weapons, including any weapons, including those you mentioned, if we are talking about the existence of the Russian state, about damaging our sovereignty and independence. As to the states that say they have no red lines regarding Russia,

they should realize that Russia won't have any red lines regarding these states either. He knows American troops are on the ground. He knows American equipment and ammunition is being fired at him. He knows the stake that the Biden administration has in this. John, Joe Biden has two major foreign policy disasters on his hand, each of which is about to explode in his face. That's right. I mean, we were talking about Israel before and the problems that he faces there and how almost impossible it is to fix those problems or fix that problem. The same thing is true with Ukraine. He's facing two huge disasters. And again, this is an election year, and this is going to have serious consequences

because Donald Trump will take advantage of these disasters in the campaign. I don't want to get too much into the politics, but Trump will say we should never have been in Ukraine and we're not going to give them any aid. But I'm wedded at the hip with Israel and we'll give them whatever they want, no matter what they do with it. That's my opinion from his words. You know, he sometimes uses hyperbole and exaggeration, but he basically means what he says. I mean, if you think about it, what's going to happen here is that the Biden administration is in the process of getting tough with Israel and will get tougher as time goes by. And Trump will make it clear that he supports Israel no matter what. He supports Israel unconditionally, and he's opposed to what Biden is doing.

And this will play to his advantage politically, I believe. And furthermore, with Ukraine, he will go to great lengths to argue that if he had been president, this wouldn't have happened because he would have worked out a deal with Putin beforehand. And he was a skeptic about NATO anyway. And he understands that NATO is principally responsible for causing this war. And if he had been in office, this wouldn't have happened. And he understands that NATO is principally responsible for causing this war. And if he had been in office, this wouldn't have happened. And that's an argument that will resonate with a lot of people. And although I don't buy it completely, I think there is some truth in it. Mrs. Newland is gone, but there are still a lot of neocons,

a lot of neocons in the State Department and those close to the president. Does this mentality, this neocon mentality, which you understand so well, ever have a reverse? after we lose in Ukraine and after it becomes clear to more and more people that what is happening in Gaza with regard to U.S. policy in the Middle East is a disaster, you would think there's going to be a day of reckoning. But the problem here is that there's just not a lot of difference between how Republicans and Democrats think about foreign policy. Trump is something of an exception here, for sure, as we were just talking about. But if you look at the Republican establishment, it's really John McCain and Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell. And when you talk about those kind of Republicans and the Democratic Party, there's just not a lot of difference in terms of how they think about U.S. foreign policy around the world. So one could argue, especially if Trump is defeated in the fall,

that there will be no day of reckoning. One can argue if Trump is elected that maybe there will be a day of reckoning. Maybe he will try to fundamentally change U.S. foreign policy, although even there, I would not bet a lot of money that he'll be successful if he tries to do that. Professor John Mearsheimer, thank you very much, my dear friend. Sorry we got a little bit of a late start. I appreciate your accommodation of my crazy schedule. Always a pleasure to chat with you. Look forward to next week already. My pleasure to be here. Thank you. What a gifted and wonderful person.

And we are delighted to have him as part of our regular cadre as guests. Bear with me a minute. At 3 o'clock Eastern, Colonel Larry Wilkerson. And at 4 o'clock Eastern, everybody's favorite, the Intelligence Community Roundtable with Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Do you ever wish you could ask your data anything at any time? How are sales this quarter?

How is a specific marketing campaign performing? How is the overall health of the business? With Domo's AI and data products platform, you can. Domo lets your team channel AI and data quickly, securely, and innovatively to deliver measurable insights wherever and whenever you need them. Anyone on your team can use Domo to prepare, analyze, visualize, automate, and distribute data amplified by AI. Domo goes beyond productivity. It's designed to transform your processes and drive real growth, powered by trust, flexibility, and years of expertise

in data and AI innovation. Data is hard. Domo is easy. Learn how Domo can help you make smarter moves faster at ai.domo.com. That's ai.domo.com.