Judging Freedom - Prof. John Mearsheimer : Can Europe Save Ukraine?

Episode Date: December 9, 2025

Prof. John Mearsheimer : Can Europe Save Ukraine?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Thank you. Everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for judging freedom. Today is Tuesday, December 9th, 2025. Professor John Mearsheimer will be with us in just a minute on, can Europe save Ukraine? And maybe a little bit about his upcoming trip to Japan. But first, history tells us every market eventually falls.

Currencies collapse. And look at where we are now. 38 trillion in national debt. Stocks at record highs defying gravity. So what happens next? Groceries, gas, housing, everything's going up. And this dollar, it buys less every day. When the system breaks, your stocks won't save you and your dollars won't either.

But one thing will. Gold. I've set it on my show for years. Gold survives collapse. Bankers know this and billionaires know it. That's why they're buying more. Is it too late to buy or is it just the right time? Call my friends at Lear Capital to find out. Ask questions. Get the free information. There's no pressure. And that's why I buy my gold and silver from Lear. And right now you can get up to $20,000 in bonus medals with a qualified purchase. Call 800, 511, 4620 or go to $1,000. to Learjudgnapp.com today. Professor Mirshamber, welcome here, my dear friend. Before we talk about, can Europe save Ukraine,

I just finished reading a great piece that you wrote. It may have been derived from a speech that you gave on the bleak future that Europe has. But before we get there, our dear friend and colleague Alastair Crook is reporting that Israeli press is reporting that Prime Minister Netanyahu is threatening Israeli president Herzog over the issue of the pardon. And contrary to Israeli law, is unwilling to admit guilt and unwilling to leave public office.

I'm going to guess that you're not surprised by any of this. Hardly at all. I mean, Netanyahu is someone who is deeply committed. to remaining an office for his long as he possibly can. And as we've talked about on the show, he's done a brilliant job at prolonging his tenure as prime minister, given the fact that he was the prime minister on October 7th when Israel was caught by surprise and suffered that devastating defeat that day.

And furthermore, given that he has been under indictment and has been in court for well over. over a year now. The fact that he survived is quite remarkable. He has no intention of leaving office. So he'll cut a deal, but it's only if it's a deal that leaves him in office and basically leaves him unscathed. I'm going to guess that this doesn't surprise you either. The Financial Times is reporting that Arab leaders have told President Trump that they will not accept Tony Blair on the so-called Trump Peace Board and they absolutely reject him.

I'm trying to say this with a straight face as the Governor General. I can't imagine that. He's going to live in Gaza anyway. They're going to reject him as the Governor General of Gaza. No, it's very interesting. Is Ha Retz has a big piece today that says in the headline

that Tony Blair has been visiting Netanyahu since October 7th on a frequent basis. I saw that. Yeah. So, I mean, this guy is in bed with the Israelis, the idea that he's going to be the one who administers Gaza. I mean, when you think about what's going on with regard to Gaza, it's really quite amazing. The two principal negotiators for the United States are Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushir, who had died in the wall Zionists.

They should not be negotiating for the United States with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And then you throw in Tony Blair, who's not much different than Kushner and Witkoff. This looks like a colonial enterprise, what trying to do in Gaza. There's no self-determination whatsoever for the Palestinians in this deal that he's concocted for Gaza. There's no political horizon. There's no self-determination. Basically, he's going to have, you know, a bunch of Europeans running it, and he's going to be nominally in charge, he meaning Trump, and then they're going to bring in some Arab and Islamic countries to police the place. This is the idea. This is a non-starter. It's just not going to work. And by the way, just to take this a step further, a number of countries, Pakistan, Indonesia, for example, who have been mentioned. as possible countries that would put peacekeeping forces in Gaza have said they will not go

into Gaza until Hamas is disarmed. And Hamas, of course, is not going to disarm. They'd be crazy to disarm because there is no hope of a political endgame for the Palestinians. There's no self-determination here. If Hamas disarmed, they'd leave themselves wide open to the IDF. Can Netanyahu claim with a straight face? I suppose we could stop right there, and I could just fill in the blank. Can he, anybody can fill in the blank, can he claim with a straight face that his government is abiding by the Whitkoff Kushner-Trump, so-called ceasefire? Not with a straight face. I mean, if you look at what's happening in Lebanon, if you look at what's happening in Gaza, there's abundant evidence, a superabundant of evidence that the Israelis are not abiding by the ceasefire.

They violated on a consistent basis in Lebanon, and they violated on a consistent basis in Gaza. And what does the United States do in these cases? It stands idly by and allows the Israelis to do whatever they want. We continue to fund them, and we continue to give them equipment and support them diplomatically if they ever get into any trouble. Just like the Congress of the United States sits idly by and lets the president do whatever he wants, even when he's murdering people on the high seas in the Caribbean Ocean, 1,500 miles from the United States. That's true. But at least the Congress is beginning to get cold feet. You're beginning to get nervous.

Right. You don't see any of that in terms of how Trump deals with the Israelis or how Congress deals with the Israelis. And that's basically because, as I've said on numerous occasions, the lobby owns Trump and the lobby owns Congress. Right, right, right. I mean, is there any feasible way to stop these killings, these criminal acts on the Caribbean, other than perhaps scaring Congress into thinking its members will not be reelected once the public sees the murders on film? That's possible. I'd say the likelihood of that happening is in the range of 5 to 10%. Wow.

I mean, the truth is if Congress decided to take the bull by the horns and get to, tough with Trump. I think he'd just ignore them. Here is Senator Rand Paul, actually earlier today on this. Chris, cut number 10. We've been doing this for 30 years. When the Coast Guard picks up boats off of Venezuela, which we have done historically, about one in four of the boats, maybe one in five, don't have drugs. So we make mistakes. Are we willing to execute people with a 20% error rate? this is an insane policy it's inconsistent it's not war and it's not the way we've ever done this

think about it if we can blow up a boat in the ocean that is at war with us because of the drugs what about when they get to miami and they put it in a in a truck and the truck's going from miami to orlando can you shoot a grenade launcher at the truck no we arrest people because sometimes we're wrong you know the make and the model of the truck is this and oh oh we made a mistake that was somebody on vacation. We don't blow up people without first arresting them. And this is the way it's been done on the high seas for a hundred years or more. And what we're doing now is just plain wrong. It's a classic constitutionally faithful clarion cry for something as simple and basic as due process. I agree. It's hard to disagree with anything that Senator Paul said. I was

I would also note that I think that it's very important that people pay attention to the rule of law, both domestically and internationally. I mean, we have laws for good reason, and I understand that sometimes countries have to violate the law because it's in their security, it's in their national interest. It makes sense from a security point of view. But you want to minimize the number of times you do that and otherwise follow the law as much as possible. possible. And the same thing is true at the domestic level. And in this country, with regard to our leadership, and I think it was true at the Biden administration as well, paying attention to the law was just not that important. We thought we could do pretty much whatever we wanted to do. And the only difference between the Biden administration and the Trump administration

at the international level is that the Biden administration trumpeted the virtues of the international legal system, the rule of law internationally, while in practice they were stomping all over it. The Trump administration, at least, is consistent. They're constantly rallying against the rules-based order or international law, while at the same time traipsing all over it. Well, see if you can figure out what the president meant here, because first he says we will release the second tape, the tape showing the survivors clinging onto chunks of wood for 45 minutes before they were murdered. And then he said, I never said I'd release the tape. And then he said he wasn't sure what he said. Watch this. See if you can figure it out. What he means? Number 11.

You release video of that first boat strike on September 2nd, but not the second video. Will you release video of that strike so that the American people can see for themselves? I don't know what they have, but whatever they have would certainly release, no problem. Mr. President, you said you would have no problem with releasing the full video of that strike on September 2nd off the coast of Venezuela. Secretary Hegsette now says... I didn't say that. You said that. I didn't say that. This is ABC fake news.

You said that you would have no problem releasing the full bit. Okay, well, Secretary Hexs... Whatever He wants to do is okay with me? He now says it's under review. Are you ordering the secretary to release... that full video. Whatever he decides is okay with me. Were you committed to releasing the full video? Didn't I just tell you that?

You said that it was up to the secretary. You're the most obnoxious reporter in the whole place. Let me just tell you, you are an obnoxious, a terrible, actually a terrible reporter. This is really ridiculous coming from the president of the United States. Yeah. I mean, what can you say at this point? All right. Let's transition. When the Kremlin agreed to disband the Warsaw Pact, why did the United States stay in NATO? We stayed in NATO because we understood that we served as a pacifier in Europe, or at least in the western half of Europe.

As long as NATO was intact, that meant the United States was there, and it had its security umbrella over the West Europeans. Now, it's very important to understand that when the Soviets disbanded the Warsaw Pact, they were nevertheless content to leave NATO intact. They were content to allow the United States to remain in Europe because the Soviets understood that we did act as a pacifier. And this is especially relevant with regard to West Germany, which was in the process of becoming Germany, because you remember at the end of the cold,

war, Germany was reunified. So the German reunification caused worries all across Europe. And people thought that the best way to deal with that potential problem was to keep NATO intact, which meant keep the Americans in Europe. We bought that argument. The Europeans bought that argument. And the Soviets and later the Russians bought that argument. So there's no problem there. Where does the problem come? It comes with NATO expansion. Right. You well know, Judge, we told the Soviets that we would not expand NATO, that it would not be expanded eastward. And then the Clinton administration came along, and they decided in 1994 that NATO would be expanded. And that is the principal source of the problem today. Had we not expanded NATO, and certainly if we had not expanded NATO or tried to expand NATO into Ukraine, Europe, I believe,

would be peaceful today. Instead, you have argued, this is a great piece. It's at the American conservative. It probably appears elsewhere. Did you give it as a speech, or did you write it as an editorial? No, I gave it as a speech before the European Parliament.

Okay, because I could hear your voice and enjoy, actually rejoice in some of your favorite figures of speech. And you argued so powerfully that Europe's future is bleak. Why do you say that? Well, it's very bleak for two reasons. One is there's not going to be a happy ending to the Ukraine war. The Russians are going to win an ugly victory. Ukraine is going to be destroyed.

And very importantly, relations between Russia on one side and Ukraine and Europe on the other side are going to be poisonous. and they're going to be dangerous because there's always a possibility, given all the flashpoints that exist in Eastern Europe, that a war will break out again. So once the war ends, once the shooting stops and you get some sort of armistice or frozen conflict, the potential for conflict, armed conflict, is still going to be there. And you want to remember you're operating in an environment where there are poisonous relations. The other point, and this is of great importance, is that the United States is pivoting to Asia in a major way. You see this in the new national security strategy that the Trump administration has just put out.

We view China as our principal concern. And there's a great deal of emphasis in the administration, and especially with Trump himself, in focusing on East Asia and leaving the Europeans to defend. for themselves. So what I'm saying here, Judge, is that if we pivot to East Asia, which I think is likely, the end result is that NATO will definitely collapse or it certainly will be a shell of its former self. And the end result is that the Europeans will be on their own to provide for their own security. And the Europeans live in fear of that possibility. So I think when you put all these things together, it's a very bleak future for Europe. the son of London, the tabloid, reports just a few minutes ago that a British soldier

was killed in Ukraine. Now, Colonel McGregor informs that many British special forces in MI6 have been killed, but none of it's been revealed. This time they revealed it because it happened in some sort of a training accident and the press was there and the guy was in uniform. Is this going to affect the Kremlin thinking at all that a British soldier in uniform was killed in Ukraine? No, I don't think they're going to care at all for two reasons. One, I'm sure they already know that there are British soldiers in Ukraine. Not many of them, but some of them. And the fact is the Russians are principally concerned with waging the war on the battlefield

And whether there are 10 British soldiers, 100 British soldiers, or even 1,000 British soldiers, just doesn't matter very much. And more importantly, the British are not going to put in 1,000 soldiers. They're not going to directly engage in the fight in any meaningful way. So this just doesn't matter very much. If you had been a fly on the wall at 10 Downing Street yesterday when Vladimir Zelensky showed up, and was greeted by Sir Kier Starrmer, President Emmanuel Macron and Chancellor Murs. What do you think you would have heard? What could they possibly say to him?

They can't raise taxes. They can't borrow money. Belgium won't let them steal the money from the Belgian banks. What can they do for him? Well, unless they can steal that money, those frozen Russian, Russian assets from Euroclear. There's hardly anything they can do. Ukraine is certainly doomed if that proves to be the case. So I think what they probably told Zelensky at this point in time is to hold the line, and they would do everything they can to steal that money and make sure that

Ukraine gets the $100 plus billion that it desperately needs so they can continue the war. I mean, there's no question that the Europeans, much like the Ukrainians, are profoundly committed to keeping this war going. They obviously think that there's some chance that the Russians will collapse before Ukraine collapses and that we will emerge, we meaning the West, and the Ukrainians will emerge victorious. I think this is tilting at windmills, but it's quite clear that the Europeans seem to believe that. President Trump, and another one of his rants, we don't have it on tape, apparently said he doesn't like the Europeans, he doesn't trust them, and he's thinking of walking away from Ukraine. Now, he said that before, so I don't know that we can put much credence in it. And we just watched that clip where he said, yeah, release the tape and five hours later denied that he had said it.

So these sort of wild, almost ridiculous at times hilarious interactions with the press and in the Oval Office, I don't think they can really be fairly used as a window into his thinking. Well, one way of thinking about what's going on, which ties this discussion of Trump to the previous question about the three European leaders in Zelensky is that everybody now understands that Ukraine is going to lose. And the question is, who's going to get the blame? Who's going to bear the responsibility for the loss? And one could argue that Trump will not simply walk away from Ukraine, because that will then allow the Ukrainians, and especially the Europeans, to blame him for the collapse of Ukraine. So the smart thing for Trump to do in this story is to say, this is a European

responsibility, and I will do everything I can to help the Europeans keep the Ukrainians afloat. So that's the Trump perspective. From the Europeans side of the equation, there I think they want to fight and fight and fight, fight to the last Ukrainian. So they cannot be accused of having bailed out on Ukraine and can actually make the argument that it's Trump, who's responsible for Ukraine's collapse. So what I'm saying to you here is I have to believe, given what's happening on the battlefield, that the Europeans, and certainly Donald Trump, understand that Ukraine is doomed, that they're going to lose this war, and there's no way of turning the tide. And therefore, the question is a blame game, or the question is, who gets the blame? You're

involved. Right, right, right. And Trump is a master at deflecting blame. Oh, yes, he's brilliant at that. And the Europeans are very good at that as well. Because you want to understand that this is going to be a catastrophic defeat. This is not a minor defeat. This is not like losing in Afghanistan, right? This is a major war where Europe and the United States or NATO more generally was on one side and the Russians were on the other. You know he'll blame it. I'll blame it on Biden. And Biden does bear a lot of blame, but he does Trump as well for arming the Ukrainians before Biden was in office and for continuing to arm them after he came to office the second time. Here is this statement, a bizarre statement he made, as if that's news, on Saturday claiming that President Zelensky hasn't even, I don't know how he could know this, hasn't even read the so-called 28-point proposal. There's a little bit more in there. We'll let you see it and hear it now.

Chris number six. What's your next step in Russia, Ukraine talks after last week's negotiations? So we've been speaking to President Putin, and we've been speaking to Ukrainian leaders, including Zelensky, President Zelensky. And I have to say that I'm a little bit disappointed that President Zelensky hasn't yet read the proposal. That was as of a few hours ago. His people love it, but he hasn't. Russia is fine with it.

Russia's, you know, Russia, I guess, would rather have the whole country when you think of it. But Russia is, I believe, fine with it. But I'm not sure that Zelensky is fine with it. His people love it. But he hasn't read it. It's really crazy. His people don't love it. Russia's not fine with it.

How could he know whether or not it's been read? And that was, by the way, Sunday evening. I misspoke when I said Saturday at the Kennedy Center. He wants to change the name of it, no surprise to the Trump Center, but it's still called the Kennedy Center. Your thoughts on this before I ask you about Japan. I agree with your description completely, right? The Russians don't accept this 28-point plan.

The Ukrainian people, and I assume by that he means all of Zelensky's advisors, all the key national security establishment figures in Ukraine. They don't accept this plan for one second. Lensky himself, I can't believe he hasn't read it. I'm sure he has, but he surely knows what's in it if he hasn't read it. And he completely rejects it. This is what he said yesterday when he talked to the press after meeting with the three European leaders. He doesn't accept the deal.

Nobody accepts the deal. problem. There's no deal to be had here. Right. I don't know what Trump is talking about. What are you going to be talking about when you address the Japanese later this week? Well, I was asked to come to Japan to talk about the security environment in East Asia, the U.S.-China competition, the Japanese China competition, and more generally where that's headed. how Japan should try to negotiate its way through these shark-infested waters. So that's what I'll be talking about. Well, safe travels. I'm sure you'll be well received, and we'll look forward to seeing you back here next week.

You're just going, giving the speech, and coming back. You're going to spend a lot of time over the Pacific in a short period of time. That's true for sure. But I look forward to seeing you next week. And I wish you the best in Japan and look forward to seeing you as well. Thank you, Professor Mir Sharma. All the best to you, Judge. Thank you. Coming up at 2 o'clock, Matt Ho. And at 3 o'clock, Colonel Karen Koukowski, Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.