Judging Freedom - Prof. John J. Mearsheimer: How Ukraine War Started.

Episode Date: May 30, 2024

Prof. John J. Mearsheimer: How Ukraine War Started.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 Thursday, May 30th, 2024. The good Professor John Mearsheimer joins us now. Professor, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you very much for joining us. I have a lot of questions to ask you about Ukraine, but I must confess that I recently watched your comments on another podcast, and you brought the interviewer and the audience back to the Clinton administration, back to events that occurred then as the origin, or in your view, the likely origin of what is now happening

in Ukraine. Can you give us a thumbnail history taking us back as far as you feel we need to go? Sure. I mean, the Cold War ends, of course, in 1989. The Soviet Union falls apart in December 91. And shortly thereafter, the Clinton administration begins to debate whether to expand NATO eastward. And there's a huge fight that takes place inside the administration. And the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and then people on the outside like George Kennan argue it would be a horrible idea to expand NATO eastward. But inside the administration, basically the liberal internationalists convinced Clinton that NATO expansion is a good idea. So in 1994, we decide, the United States, to expand NATO eastward. The first tranche of expansion takes place in 1999, and that includes Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Then in 2004, the second

big tranche of expansion takes place, and that includes the Baltic states, countries like Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Slovakia. And in both the 1999 case and in the 2004 case, the Russians scream bloody murder. This is unacceptable to them, but they're not in a position to do anything to stop it. It's ultimately not that threatening. So those two expansions take place. Then the fateful decision is made in April 2008 that NATO is going to bring Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance. And the Russians make it unequivocally clear at the time that that is not going to happen. Let me just stop you. When does the United States Ambassador Bill Burns, now the head of the CIA, send his famous yet means yet cable to the State Department, which eventually was released by Julian Assange?

That's in the spring of 2008 at the same time as the Bucharest decision. The NATO summit at Bucharest is where NATO says that Ukraine and Georgia will be brought into the alliance. And of course, Bill Burns, who's now the head of the CIA, was then the U.S. ambassador to Moscow. So he was right in the thick of things. And he wrote a memo to Condi Rice, basically making it clear that this was the reddest of red lines or the brightest of red lines for the Russians. And nevertheless, we persisted. And so that was in April 2008. Very important to understand that in August 2008, a few months later, a war breaks out in Georgia, between Georgia and Russia, over this very issue. So the trouble starts immediately, although not with Ukraine. The crisis with Ukraine breaks out in 2014, February 2014. And as you remember, that's when the Russians take Crimea and the

civil war in the Donbass breaks out. And then you go from 2014 up until February 2022. So if you think about it, there's an eight-year period between when the crisis starts, February 2014, to when the actual war that's now going on starts in February 2022. And I would just add one final point. After the crisis broke out in February 2014, instead of backing off and trying to work out some sort of accommodation with the Russians. What we do instead is we decide to arm and train the Ukrainians. And in effect, by 2021, a year before the war, it's quite clear that Ukraine has become a de facto member of the alliance. It's not a de jure member, but it's a de facto member. And the Russians are panicking and trying to work out a deal or some sort of arrangement so that Ukraine will not become part of NATO. But we refuse to

negotiate with them in a serious way. And the end result is you get the war in February 2022. I mean, is it fair to say that the American, the Western attitude about expanding NATO is across the board and bipartisan. Clinton, Bush, Obama. Yes. You're hesitating. Well, let me make one or two points. It's very important to understand that there was a huge debate, as I pointed out before, in the 1990s about whether to expand NATO. There were a lot of very hawkish cold warriors who were opposed to NATO expansion, people like Paul Nitze, and then, of course, George Cannon and the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as I said. But what's very interesting is that once the decision was made and we began to move forward towards the 1999 tranche,

all of that opposition disappeared. And from then on out, there was hardly any opposition. And your point then kicks in, that it was support across the board. There were some who were more enthusiastic than others. I think President Obama was considerably less enthusiastic than his vice president, who was extremely enthusiastic. And that, of course, is Joe Biden, who's now the president. But nevertheless, both of them supported NATO expansion into Ukraine. Do you have a finger on the pulse of Donald Trump with respect to NATO in Ukraine, or did he never really address that in a consistent or coherent way? You had Mike Pompeo, a super hawk as his director of the CIA and then his secretary of state? Well, I think that when Trump became president, he was interested in having good relations with Putin and he was interested in getting out of Europe. So he was not interested in NATO at all,

much less NATO expansion. But in his administration or during his time in office, Trump was beaten back by the blob at almost every turn. And Trump and his lieutenants all acknowledge that fact. And he, Trump, was beaten back on the Ukraine issue. Do you think that Europe fears another Trump administration or is at least hoping that one does not come to pass? I don't think that. I know that. They live in mortal fear that he's going to get reelected. Because Trump has made it clear that this time he's going to bring his own people in. They're going to have a blueprint and they're going to execute it. And this is not going to be like the 2017 to 2021 period.

Okay. All right. How, and now we're in May of 2024, how stable is the Ukraine government as we speak? The president is unlawful. He rules by decree, his own decree authorizing him to rule by decree has expired. So how stable is the government and how stable is the military as it attempts to resist an inexorable, nonstop, regular, consistent, systematic Russian onslaught? Well, I think the military situation is quite straightforward. The Russians have the upper hand. They clearly have the upper hand. Their advantage over the Ukrainians is growing by the week. And it would not be surprising if this summer or this fall, the Ukrainian military crumbled. So it's quite clear what's happening

on the battlefield. With regard to what's happening in the political domain back in Kyiv, it's not that clear. I think there's little doubt that Zelensky is in trouble because one can make an argument that he is no longer legitimate. And there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in the country about the way the war is going. And the fact that they have press gangs out rounding up young men and even older men to put in the military tells you how little enthusiasm there is for the war in the broader public. So he has real problems. I don't know who inside the government or inside the foreign policy establishment in Kyiv is a possible candidate to replace him. I don't know how deep the dissatisfaction is and whether there could be a coup.

That's all possible, But it's very hard to say from afar. But there's no question he's in trouble. Can the United States bring about regime change with a couple of phone calls, regime change in Ukraine? I think we probably could go a long way towards accomplishing that end. It's not clear that we want to do that. I mean, Zelensky's our guy, and we've worked hand in hand with him. I don't think we have any real incentive to get rid of him. And as you know, whether or not it's a good idea or an attractive idea to get rid of Zelensky is in good part a function of who would replace him. He don't see anybody on the horizon who looks like he or she would be a significant improvement over Zelensky. So I think we're stuck with Zelensky, and he's stuck with us, and we're both in deep trouble. NATO is meeting in Brussels. I'm going to get

to the end of the story before we analyze it. The end of the story is that they have collectively agreed to send a billion. I don't know if it's military equipment, ammunition, or cash, but they've collectively agreed to send a billion. Before I ask you what they were thinking, here's part of the pitch that President Zelensky made to them. Cut number two. Even from reconnaissance, you get maps, satellite images, but you cannot respond. I think it's unfair. But we cannot, and this is a fact, risk the support of our partners.

And that is why we do not use the weapons of our partners on the territory of the Russian Federation. Please give us the opportunity to retaliate against their military. As a result of a longer pitch, part of which that was a part, Belgium commits to a billion dollars. What motivates them to do that, Professor Mearsheimer? Do they not understand how delicate and perilous the situation is for Ukraine at the moment? Well, they do understand. And the question is, what are you going to do? And you can do one of two things. You can recognize that this is a hopeless situation and do 180 degree turn and do everything possible to negotiate a settlement that's as favorable as possible to the Ukrainians. That's one possibility. And in my humble opinion,

that's the smart option. The other option is when you're desperate, just do anything you possibly can and hope that a miracle takes place. And I think that's really where we are at today. We don't have any good options if we're going to continue the fight. And, you know, the Belgiques can give them a billion dollars, but it's just not going to matter hardly at all. And, you know, it even gets can give them a billion dollars, but it's just not going to matter hardly at all. And, you know, it even gets to the issue that Zelensky was talking about, which is using Western missiles to hit Mother Russia. And there's all sorts of pressure on the West to allow Zelensky to do that. I hope that doesn't happen.

But if it does happen, it's not going to affect events on the battlefield at all. The die is cast on this one. We just are unable to recognize that and act on it. How ill advised was it for President Macron of France to state publicly that we're not really defending them if we don't allow them to hit the enemy, meaning to use French military offensive weaponry to strike at Russian military bases in Russia, heedless of what is likely to come back? Well, I think it's dangerous. I think we should hope that those attacks are not successful, because if they're not successful, the Russians won't retaliate. And if that is not the case, and those attacks, you know, if the ATAKMS missiles and the assorted other missiles that the Ukrainians have received from the French, the British, the Americans and other countries are effective and they start to do really significant damage inside of Mother Russia, the Russians are going to retaliate.

They've made that unequivocally clear. And that could lead to a significant escalation. Here's President Putin making that unequivocally clear. Cut number four. Representatives of NATO countries, especially in Europe, especially in small countries, they should be aware of what they are playing with before talking about striking Russian territory. In general, this constant escalation can lead to serious consequences. Constant escalation can lead to serious consequences. You know his mind, you know his history. Does he bluff? No, he's not bluffing.

I think the key point here that most people in the West don't understand is that from the Russian point of view, what is happening in Ukraine represents an existential threat. This is like having a war. Threat to whom, John? To Russia. Right. Okay. Go ahead, please. It's an existential threat to Russia. This is what Bill Burns said in his famous memo. And Bill Burns was saying,

if you bring Ukraine into NATO, you should understand that that is an existential threat to Russian leaders. Well, we are well beyond simply bringing Ukraine into NATO. We are fighting a war in Ukraine right on Russia's borders. And now we're talking about taking Western weapons and attacking Mother Russia. Just think about what we're doing here. And the Russians view this, unsurprisingly, as an existential threat. So if we begin to have an effect with those attacks on the Russian homeland, you can rest assured that they're going to retaliate. in Poland. It could involve attacking targets in the Baltic Sea. There are all sorts of ways that this can escalate. And just take the case of them retaliating inside of Poland. If they do that, what are we going to do? This is a case of the Russians hitting a member of NATO. Are we going to then get involved in the war? Well, Joe would probably love that if it's before Election Day. As insane as it is,

it'll let him run as if re-election, as if he's FDR in 1944. Yeah, that's assuming he doesn't get incinerated. I don't think that that would be a very good idea at all. I have to jump on what you said. Do you think the probability of the use of nuclear weapons is something to be concerned about? Absolutely. Let me make two points. One is that if the United States gets involved in the fight against Russia, you have a great power war, and you have a great power war that's taking place in Ukraine right on Russia's borders. And that means that there is going to be, there are going to be attacks into Russia by the United States. This is going to be a threat of the greatest magnitude from a Russian point of view, you know, fighting against the United States. And it is possible that nuclear weapons will be used. If the West were to prevail

in that conflict, if the United States were to start winning against the Russians, I think it's highly likely that the Russians would turn to nuclear weapons. And once that happens, who knows what escalation looks like? Now, you might say to yourself, okay, this is not likely to happen. But even if the likelihood is small, the consequences are so enormous that we want to, at almost all costs, avoid this. We do not want to have a great power war for fear that we don't want to have a great power war, period. But we don't want to have a great power war because it may escalate into a nuclear war. It's a small world for Ukraine, which doesn't matter to the United States at all strategically. Let's get back to before we mentioned nuclear weapons.

The French have equipment on the ground being operated by French technicians, contractors, soldiers, intelligence agents, whatever they are, they're French. The U.S., the same. Scott Ritter informs that there's so much classified information necessary to operate these things, the French are not going to give

their classified codes to the Ukrainians, neither are we. Stated differently, there are Americans on the ground operating our offensive weaponry. Secretary Blinken has mused aloud, I think this is crazy, but correct me if you think I'm wrong, that maybe we should allow American offensive weaponry, meaning fired by American personnel, aimed by American personnel, informed by CIA MI6, into the Russian territory. How dangerous is all of this? How perilous is this to American lives? You mean into Ukrainian territory? Yes. Into Ukraine. No, I meant into Russian

territories, talking about allowing the use of offensive weaponry to attack Russian military bases in Russia, which President Macron mused. Okay. Well, I think this would be foolish, as I said before. I mean, I can't believe we've reached this point, but it just shows you how desperate we are. And who knows where all this leads? Whose military is superior if there were a ground war, Russia or the United States? That's very hard to say. I think given all the combat the Russians have been in and given the size of their forces and the problems that we would have projecting power deep into Eastern Europe, I think at least in the initial stages

of a war, the Russians would have an advantage over us on the ground. Wow. Let's switch gears, if we could. The incineration of 45 Palestinians in a tent by Israeli bombing, which President Netanyahu claims was a tragic mistake, but which, of course course Hamas says was intentional. Prime Minister Netanyahu says they tried to kill and think they may have killed two Hamas leaders. Do Hamas leaders hang out in refugee tents or are they 70 meters below the earth? My guess is that they're 70 meters below the earth. I think that's

why the Israelis have actually killed remarkably few Hamas fighters. If you look at the numbers, the number that's usually given is probably about 35,000 dead, 14,500 are children, about 9,500 are women. That leaves about 11,000 men. I bet that a huge proportion of those 11,000 men are not Hamas fighters because, as you say, they're down under the ground, you know, hiding. And therefore, the Israelis are not killing many Hamas fighters. But here's Admiral Kirby. He doesn't want this question. He doesn't even want to have to answer it. But it's profound. And here's the question. How many more charred corpses will it take for Joe Biden to tell Bibi Netanyahu, you've crossed the red line? Cut number five. How many more charred corpses does he have to see before the president considers a change?

We don't want to see a single more innocent life taken. And I kind of take a little offense at the question. No civilian casualties is the right number of civilian casualties. And this is not something that we've turned a blind eye to, nor has it been something we've ignored or neglected to raise with our Israeli counterparts, including Ed, this weekend as a result of this particular strike. Now, they're investigating it. So let's let them investigate it and see what they come up with. This was yesterday, and I think it was Admiral Kirby at his worst offense at the question. It's a profound question. Well, it's an uncomfortable question for him to put it mildly. I would just remind you, as I said a minute ago, 14,500 children are dead. 14,500. We have been supplying the Israelis with 2,000-pound bombs, large numbers

of 2,000-pound bombs to drop on Gaza. If you look at the death and destruction that has been wrought on that small piece of real estate since October 7th, it's truly staggering. The idea that the United States and Israel are appalled by these civilian deaths and going to great lengths to prevent a large number of civilian deaths and all this destruction of property that's taken place is not a serious argument. that if the three-judge panel of the International Criminal Court now considering the acceptance of indictments and the issuance of search warrants, arrest warrants, for Netanyahu and Galant and the three Hamas leaders comes to pass, that Jake Sullivan, Tony Blinken, and Joe Biden could be next? I think there's a real possibility of that. And I think, by the way, as I've said before, I think that this investigation that's taking place by the ICC has not stopped.

And they have made it clear that they're going to look at the behavior of other people in Gaza. And they're also looking at the behavior of Israelis in the West Bank. So I believe that with the passage of time, there is a good chance that more Israelis will face arrest warrants. And I wouldn't be surprised if at some point they come after American officials. Wow. Donald Trump said if he were president and there were demonstrations on, he mentioned Columbia, but this could apply to Chicago as well. And he felt they were disruptive. He'd send troops in to arrest the demonstrators

and those that were not Americans he would deport. So I guess you better warn the president of the University of Chicago this might be coming. Yeah, I mean, this is a ludicrous statement. And I don't know what he's talking about. What he's talking about is that nobody cares except for you and I and the people watching us and others of like mind. Very few people in the government care about the freedom of speech and the Constitution meaning what it says. I agree with that. I don't know what to say.

I find the situation in the United States today to be categorically depressing. Yes. My column this week, I don't always like to tout my own work, is called American Caesar. It's not an attack on Trump. It catalogs what many presidents have done of both political parties to assume power on their own, nowhere countenanced in the Constitution to achieve some end.

It's almost always connected with wartime. And all they have to do is use the magic word, emergency. And then Congress looks the other way and the presidents get to do what they want, from killing people to arresting people to confiscating their property. And it gets under my skin. I've devoted my whole career as a lawyer, as a judge, as a commentator to explaining, understanding, and my years on the bench enforcing the Bill of Rights. It's got to mean what it says. Otherwise, we're in the hands of whoever happens to be in power, whatever their whim is. I have only one disagreement with what you said. And you said that Congress looks the other way. I think actually Congress embraces all this criticism. Yes, yes. When you listen to a lot of these senators and congressmen speak, they're worse than President Biden and President Trump. I was interviewing Charlie Rangel. I don't know if you remember him. Very colorful congressman. He was a character to talk to from Harlem.

At the very moment that President Obama, from Brazil, went on international television and announced that we were bombing Libya. We took it live on the show, on the set, and I went back to interviewing him. I said, aren't you going to do anything about it? He can't start a war against Libya. There's got to be a congressional declaration of war. I won't do the imitation of his voice. He said, oh, no, let it fall in his hands. If he's successful, we'll all applaud him. If it's a disaster, it has nothing to do with us. What do you mean it has nothing to do with us? You have a constitutional duty to make sure the president stays within the confines of

the Constitution. You're right. They don't see it that way. The article that I wrote catalogs 135 statutes that give presidents extraordinary power. Where'd those statutes come from? From Congress. Yeah. And it's very interesting, but if you look at polls of young people in the United States these days, you see that they think overwhelmingly that the system is broken, that there's something fundamentally wrong. Of course, they're correct. And it's a bipartisan destruction, Professor Mearsheimer. I agree completely. I have taken too much of your time

and revealed too much of my emotion, but I love all my time with you and the viewers love all your time with us. So I'll be away next week, but thank you very much for your time. We'll hope to catch up with you two weeks from today. I look forward to it, Judge. Thank you, Professor. All the best. All the best to you. Thank you. Coming up at 4.15, Max Blumenthal, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.