Judging Freedom - Prof. John Mearsheimer : Bad Times for Israel/Ukraine/US

Episode Date: June 19, 2024

Prof. John Mearsheimer : Bad Times for Israel/Ukraine/USSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, June 20th, 2024. Professor John Mearsheimer will be with us in just a moment on what is the bad news for Israel, for Ukraine, and for the U.S. But first this. You all know that I am a paid spokesperson for Lear Capital, but I'm also a customer, a very satisfied customer. About a year ago, I bought gold, and it's now increased in value 23%. So $100 invested in gold a year ago is now worth $123. You have $100 in the bank. It still shows $100, but $100 in the bank is now worth 24% less.

Inflation has reduced all of your savings, all of your buying power and mine by 24%. And gold is largely immune from that. If you want to learn how gold will soon hit $3,200 an ounce, call Lear Capital, 800-511-4620, or go to learjudgenap.com. Get your free gold report. Same experts who predicted the 23% rise that I've enjoyed have predicted this $3,200 an ounce gold. Learn about how to transfer this to an IRA. Protect your savings. 800-511-4620,

learjudgenap.com. Tell them the judge sent you. Professor Mearsheimer, a pleasure, my dear friend. Welcome back to the show and thank you for your time, as always. In a minute or so, I'm going to play the 62nd most important part of President Putin's statement offering a ceasefire. But before I do, were you surprised at all that the West pooh-poohed this almost within minutes of it coming out of his mouth? No, not at all. I mean, the fact is that there is no way there can be any meaningful agreement between Russia and the West at this point in time on settling the conflict in Ukraine. Anything the Russians say we're going to dismiss and anything we say about settling this conflict, they're going to dismiss. We're in a hopeless situation. Well, what does that mean that the only way to end this

is with the total victory of one side over the other, and it looks kind of obvious as to which victory is more likely. I would agree with everything you say, except for the use of word total when you describe victory. I know why. I'll take the word total out, but please correct me. Yeah, I think that the Russians will win this war. They will end up conquering more territory than they now control. Ukraine will be wrecked, and you'll get a frozen conflict. It's very important to remember that Putin said in his June 14th comments that what he was interested in was not a frozen conflict. He wanted a real peace negotiation. I don't think you're going to get that. I think the best you can hope for at this point is a frozen conflict. And once that conflict freezes, it'll be clear to everybody that the Russians have the upper hand, or to put it in different terms, that the Russians won. And they won what I normally call an ugly victory. What is a frozen conflict, this term that you're using, Professor Mearsheimer? It's analogous to the situation that you have between South Korea

and North Korea on the 38th parallel. There's never been any meaningful peace agreement. You basically get a ceasefire. The forces remain pretty much in place. And you always run the danger that that frozen conflict will turn into a hot conflict or a war. And Putin doesn't want that. He wants to end this once and for all for understandable reasons. Of course, the Ukrainians want to end it once and for all as well, but they have two different views, fundamentally different views, contradictory views on what the final settlement should look like. And it's because those views are so contradictory that there's no way you can get, in my opinion, a meaningful settlement. And this, going back to your original question, explains why the West and Ukraine dismissed Putin's final proposal out of hand. Here's President Putin on the ceasefire. It's about 60 seconds long. His talk was obviously

longer. We've excerpted what we view to be the core of that talk. And I want you to listen for a couple of things. He mentions negotiations. He's willing to negotiate. He does not mention Ukraine having a standing army. He does not mention Odessa. He does not mention the Black Sea. President Putin on ceasefire. The West is ignoring our interests and at the same time, forbidding Kiev to negotiate, all the while hypocritically calling us to some kind of negotiations. It just seems foolish. Ukrainian troops must be fully withdrawn from Donetsk and Luhansk peoples' republics, and from the Kherson and Zaporizhia regions. And I draw your attention to the fact that it includes the entire territory of these regions within their administrative borders, as they existed when they joined Ukraine.

Once Kiev declares its readiness and starts the genuine withdrawal of its troops from these areas. As well as officially notify about the abandonment of plans to join NATO, our side will immediately, literally at the same minute, follow the order to cease fire and start negotiations. Our side will immediately, literally at the same minute, engage, follow the order to cease fire and start negotiations. One would think the State Department would welcome negotiations if for no other reason than to take the temperature, to take the pulse of the other side. But our people don't even want to talk. Isn't that a dereliction of duty? Well, you want to remember that he says there's two prerequisites before those negotiations can start. And one is that Ukraine has to pull all its forces out of those regions, the four regions or the four oblasts

that Russia has now annexed. It's very important to understand that Russia has annexed Crimea, and it completely controls Crimea. It's also annexed four oblasts, and those four oblasts are not completely controlled by Russia. Ukraine controls slices of those four oblasts. So what he is saying is before negotiations can start, the Ukrainians have to abandon completely those four oblasts. Second, he's saying that the Ukrainians have to commit to a neutral Ukraine, to Ukraine not becoming part of NATO before the negotiations can start. And asking for that at this point in time is definitely going to get a no from the West and from Ukraine. And that's why they dismissed the negotiations out of hand. One would think that negotiations should be taking place.

One would think that Tony Blinken should be speaking to Sergei Lavrov. No? Talk to him. Pick up the phone, talk to him, hear what he has to say. Yeah, absolutely. By the way, just to go back to Putin's demands, I've argued before on the show that the best solution for Ukraine would be to negotiate now and accept the fact that it's lost those four oblasts, number one, and number two, declare that it is not going to join NATO. So from my personal point of view, it would be smart for Ukraine and for the West to accept those two prerequisites that Putin is demanding and then begin negotiations. Because I think that's the best possible deal that Ukraine can get. The problem in the West is that people think, and the Ukrainians think this as well,

that we can beef up the Ukrainian fighting forces, they can restore the balance of power on the battlefield, and they will then have a better bargaining position down the road. I think this is delusional. They're in deep trouble, and they ought to cut a deal now. And if you really think about it, the deal that Putin put on the table is not a bad deal. Isn't it inevitable that Ukraine will not be in NATO? Yes. Well, I mean, Jens Stoltenberg has recently said that the Ukrainians have to defeat the Russians and, in effect, end the war before Ukraine can join NATO. He can't possibly mean that unless he's delusional.

Well, one could say it's a case of Stoltenberg sending a signal to the Ukrainians that they're never going to join NATO. I mean, that's possible. I can't believe that Stoltenberg actually thinks that Ukraine is going to win this war in any meaningful way and then will be able to join NATO. They have to keep that illusion alive because it's such an important part of the narrative in the West. And the United States is not going to do anything meaningful to end this conflagration between now and November 5th for domestic, for obvious domestic political reasons. I think that's right. I think that what Biden wants to do is maintain the status quo. I think the Gaza war is one that he's desperate to shut down. I mean, I think that all of this

talk about, you know, a ceasefire, a three-phase plan for putting an end to this war, which the Americans are pushing very hard. It's all designed to help Biden win in the November election. President Biden claims, Admiral Kirby claims, Secretary Blinken claims, National Security Advisor Sullivan claims that the three-part ceasefire, the phased-in ceasefire, was an Israeli proposal. That is preposterous, is it not? Haven't the Israelis rejected it? How could they reject their own proposal? Yeah, it's preposterous. I mean, I don't understand why they keep saying that. And of course, they blame Hamas for the fact that the ceasefire has not taken effect. It's not the Israelis' fault, it's Hamas' fault. But in fact, the Israelis have no interest, let me put it differently, Prime Minister Netanyahu has no

interest in putting that ceasefire into place, because if he did, his government would collapse. And that's the last thing he wants. So the Israelis, and here we're talking about Prime Minister Netanyahu again, are not interested in the ceasefire proposal. It's the Biden administration, as I said, that's driving the train here. The Israeli government would collapse if he accepted that peace proposal or that ceasefire proposal because the hard right members of his majority in the Knesset would summarily leave. He'd be a minority government. And in the midst of all this military conflagration, the Israeli public would be saddled with an election campaign. That's correct.

Okay. What does Netanyahu propose to do with Hezbollah, and are his proposals, as far as you can understand them, realistic? Well, it appears that the only option that the Israelis have at this point in time is a military option, unless they want to stop the war in Gaza. And if they stop the war in Gaza, Hezbollah has made it clear that they will stop shelling northern Israel. But they're not going to stop the war in Gaza, and therefore the shelling is going to go on. And this is causing huge problems for the Israelis because approximately 60,000 people have been displaced from northern Israel and have moved into the center of Israel

and don't have permanent homes to live in and want to go back to their homes in the north. So the Israelis are desperate to do something to fix this problem. And the only option they see is a military option. And they now say that the plans are in place and there's all sorts of evidence that they're going to go to war against Hezbollah, and they are going to eliminate Hezbollah in the same way that they have eliminated Hamas, which is to say they haven't eliminated Hamas, and they're not going to eliminate Hezbollah, and they're going to find themselves in another quagmire. I think a lot of people in Israel sense that that is the case, or know that that is the case, but they feel they really have no option at this point in time, because they have to do something about Hezbollah. And what else can they do but go to war? But going

to war is not going to solve their problem. Well, this just shows how much trouble Israel is in. It's got huge problems with Hamas. It's got huge problems with Hezbollah. It's got huge problems with Iran. And it has no simple solution for any of these problems. So Joe Biden, who desperately wants peace between the Israelis and their neighbors, may actually end up with a two-front war. What is the U.S. going to do? Provide the weaponry and ammunition and manpower to help the Israelis fight Hezbollah? We might as well put troops on the ground. We might as well declare war on Israel's opponents, even though it serves no national security purpose to the United States whatsoever.

Well, there's no question that the Biden administration is going to enormous lengths to head off a war against Hezbollah, number one. And number two, as we've talked about, is going to enormous lengths to try and shut down the war against Hamas. So the Biden administration does not want Israel to be in a two-front war. But as we both know, the United States has very little leverage when it comes to Israel. And if Israel decides to go to war against Hezbollah and continue the war against Hamas, we will support them fully. I don't think we will end up putting ground forces in either one of those fights, into either one of those fights, but I do think we will support the Israelis completely, as we almost always do, and the end result will not be good for the United

States, which again is why Biden doesn't want this to happen. The hypothetical phone call that our friend and colleague Max Blumenthal has said would stop the slaughter in Gaza in 24 hours will never be made, in your view, because of the vice grip that the donor class, the Israeli lobby, however you want to characterize them, has on the American government in general and on Joe Biden in particular? Absolutely. And the Republicans are as staunch in their defense of Israel as Joe Biden is these days. And in fact, the Republicans are criticizing Biden for not being supportive enough of Israel. So if Donald Trump gets elected in the fall, all evidence is that he will be every bit as supportive of Israel as President Biden has been. The fact is that the lobby is enormously powerful, and it pretty much gets its way every time when it comes to the Israel-Palestine

or the Israel-Hezbollah conflict situations. The mainstream media has been reporting for weeks that Mrs. Adelson's phrase, liberate the West Bank and maybe even go onto the other side of the Jordan River. Do you believe that? Do you believe that such a negotiation is actually going on and such an event might actually happen and return for campaign dollars? Well, I wouldn't be surprised if Sheldon Adelson's wife is making these demands and that Trump is doing everything he can to finesse this issue, to convince her that he will do that. And he might very well do it. And the Israeli government that's in place, should he become president again, Bank, and it has no intention of giving up that control. So de facto, the West Bank has been annexed.

But what Sheldon Adelson's wife would like is for Israel to do this officially. So you had a de jure annexation. It could conceivably happen. I'm not sure it would make much difference because the fact is that the United States would protect Israel if it did this. And as I say, you have a de facto annexation anyway. Keeping in mind your championing the political historical theory of realism, which, as I understand it, argues that the most powerful country in the region wants to get its way and protect its power and hegemony. Who controls the Middle East, the United States or Israel? Well, I think there is no question that the power of the lobby and the fact that Israel basically is the tail that wags the American dog contradicts my basic theory of international politics, right? What's happening with regard

to the U.S.-Israeli relationship is it is at odds with basic realist logic. Realist logic says that the United States should act in its own strategic interest, and it should pursue policies that make good sense for fostering the security of the United States. And because of the power of the lobby and the ability, therefore, of Israel to get its way in terms of shaping American policy in the Middle East, we end up doing things that are not in our national interest. And this contradicts realism. And that's why you would expect a good realist like me or a good realist like Steve Walt to write a book about the Israel lobby and how it is doing great damage to the U.S. position

in the Middle East. And by the way, also doing great damage to Israel. Very important to emphasize that the policies that the lobby is pushing are not doing Israel any favors. Israel is a country that is in really deep trouble, and looking forward, it only gets worse. And much of this has to do with the fact that the lobby has prohibited prohibited us from putting significant pressure on israel and preventing israel from doing foolish things israel is in deep trouble ukraine is in deep trouble we are backing both the us is in deep trouble um can you see a future where American politicians are prosecuted for war crimes in Gaza? No, I think that's highly unlikely. I think it would be quite surprising if Israeli politicians are eventually prosecuted.

I think there will, in all likelihood, be arrest warrants against Israeli leaders. Certainly, I think that'll be the case with Netanyahu and Yoav Galant, who's the defense minister. But I don't think they'll ever be taken to court. I don't think they'll ever be arrested and prosecuted in a court of law. And I find it hard to believe the Americans would. How has the United States benefited as a nation from its relationship to Israel? It hasn't. I mean, that's why you need a lobby. If our relationship with Israel made strategic and moral sense, you wouldn't need a

lobby. We would just behave the way we now behave towards Israel because it's in our strategic interest, because it's the morally correct thing to do. It's because it's not in our strategic interest, it's because it is the morally incorrect thing to do, that you have this incredibly powerful lobby that works overtime to push U.S. policy in a pro-Israel direction. This is why AIPAC has minders for every person on Capitol Hill. They understand that if these people were free to vote according to what they thought was in America's strategic interest or what was ethically or morally correct, the United States would have a fundamentally different policy. Congressman Thomas Massey told me that as far as he knew, he was the only Republican member of the House of Representatives who told the AIPAC minder to leave him alone and that he was

no longer welcome and that all the other Republican members of Congress have this AIPAC minder continuously lobbying, continually communicating with them, some of them actually full-time members of their in-house Capitol Hill staffs. I didn't know this. I'm sure you knew this because you, with your colleague, wrote the book, the classic work on the influence of the lobby in American politics. But I didn't know about the minders until Congressman Massey mentioned it the other day. I also didn't know that he is the only one who told the minder to take a hike. But you want to ask yourself, why is APEC doing this? Why do these congressmen need minders? These are foreign agents, these minders. They may be American human beings,

but they're foreign agents, are they not? They're agents for a foreign government. Which under federal law means they have to be registered and their sources of income revealed, except when that foreign government is Israel, correct? Well, AIPAC is acting within the bounds of the law. There are many people who believe that AIPAC should be categorized as a foreign lobby, but it has not been. And therefore, there's nothing illegal about what these individuals are doing.

We can argue about whether it makes sense or not. And we can argue about whether it makes sense to categorize AIPAC as a foreign lobby or not. But the fact is, it's not categorized as such at this point. And therefore, what's happening is not illegal. Before we leave, I want to go back to where we started. As we speak, Russian President Putin is in North Korea. Could this have happened without China's blessing? I would imagine that the Russians went to great lengths to clear this with the Chinese and tell the Chinese that their moves to improve relations with North Korea were not aimed at

undermining China's relationship with North Korea. I mean, the Chinese and the Russians have historically competed for attention in North Korea. And I think the Russians are fully aware that they run the risk of alienating the Chinese if they get too cozy with the North Koreans, and it looks like they're undermining Chinese influence in that country. So I would imagine that they coordinated, the Russians coordinated this with the Chinese, and Korea? Or do I have a view of North Korea through the lens of Western media is that they don't manufacture anything? Well, they definitely manufacture lots of artillery. And if you're the Russians, you probably are thinking you can never have enough artillery and maybe assorted other kinds of weaponry as well. So I think having good relations with North Korea is in Russia's interest from the point of view of

the weapons balance in the Ukraine war. Furthermore, having good relations with North Korea causes the Americans all sorts of problems. You want to remember that not too long ago, we were working with the Russians and the Chinese to put pressure on North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons. Those days are long gone, and there's no way we could ever get the Russians and the Chinese to help us coerce the North Koreans into giving up their nuclear weapons. And by the way, this has, you know, influence for how you think about Iran. The Iranians are clearly moving down the nuclear road. They've not weaponized yet, but there's great fear that they are going to weaponize. And it's not

only the North Koreans who have become very close with both the Russians and the Chinese, the Iranians have as well. And if the Iranians begin to push hard down the nuclear road, the Russians and the Chinese will be in a good position to protect them. And they certainly will not be interested in helping us put great pressure on Iran not to go down the nuclear road should Iran do that. Well, this is all tied together, Professor Mearsheimer. The Israelis want a war against Hezbollah. Hezbollah wants to attack Israel. The Iranians are not going to let the Israelis defeat Hezbollah.

The Russians are not going to let the Israelis defeat Iran. Where does World War III start? In two places at once, in Kiev and in the West Bank? Well, hopefully World War III won't start. But there's no question that when you look out at what's happening around the world in East Asia, in Ukraine, and in Gaza. There is serious concern for worrying about, or serious reason to worry about a possible great power war, or maybe even World War III. And given that we're talking about countries that are armed with nuclear weapons, this is really scary. But the situation in all three of these regions shows hardly any signs of improving. And in almost every case, it looks like the to be able to pick your brain, which is possessed of brilliance and personal courage.

Thank you, my dear friend. I hope you'll come back again next week. I look forward to it. Thank you. Thank you. It is a privilege to be able to interrogate someone like Professor John Mearsheimer. Coming up later today at 2 o'clock, Matt Ho, and at 3 o'clock, Aaron Maté. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. MUSIC