Judging Freedom - Prof. John Mearsheimer: Can Ukraine and Israel Embrace Peace?

Episode Date: April 24, 2025

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

Shopify helps you sell at every stage of your business. Like that, let's put it online and see what happens stage. And the site is live. That we opened a store and need a fast checkout stage. Thanks, you're all set. That count it up and ship it around the globe stage. This one's going to Thailand. And that, wait, did we just hit a million orders stage.

Whatever your stage, businesses that grow, grow with Shopify. Sign up for your $1 a month trial at Shopify.com slash listen. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, April 24th, 2025. Professor John Mearsheimer joins us now. Professor Mearsheimer, a pleasure as always. I know you're traveling and lecturing and I deeply appreciate your accommodating my schedule. I've been asking almost to everyone this week the following sort of lead off question and getting a variety of answers and I'll put it to you if I may. Is there any political or geopolitical significance

to the death of Pope Francis? Well, I would say in a world where there's not much noble behavior on the part of the elite with regard to what's happening in Palestine, I think the Pope's words were welcome and I think his voice will be missed. I think one could make an argument that he should have spoken louder or more forcefully about the genocide in Gaza, and it's regrettably that he did, but there are limits on what someone in his position can do. And I think he contributed in a positive way.

And for that, I'm going to miss him. Apparently, during the last three months or so of his life, he called the Catholic priest who was the pastor of the sole remaining Roman Catholic Church in Gaza, which was built in the eight hundreds, and encouraged him to continue to minister to his flock. As a result of that and maybe something in Argentina 70 years ago, when the pope died, I didn't know this, Max Blumenthal told us, the Israeli embassy to the Vatican immediately posted condolences and then Prime Minister Netanyahu ordered the condolences taken down and they were. Surprise?

Of course not, of course not. All right. What is your take on the decision by Secretary of State Rubio and presidential envoy Witkoff not to attend the London ceasefire meetings between Russian representatives and Ukrainian representatives, and instead to send General Kellogg. Well, I think that Rubio and Witkoff

were originally going to attend because they thought there would be a serious discussion of the Trump proposal for ending this war. And they were anxious to put pressure on Zelensky and on the Ukrainians to get them to sign on to the deal, at least in principle. But then Zelensky made it clear that he didn't want to talk or the Ukrainians didn't want to talk about the proposal that the Trump administration was putting forward. They wanted to resurrect the idea of a 30-day ceasefire. And I think what happened was that Witkoff and Rubio

understood that this was ridiculous, that this was just a stalling tactic and there was no point in going. So they pulled out of the meeting. And of course then the European foreign ministers did likewise and a meaning of those, a meeting of no significance was held. Right. And that's sort of where we are. Where we are, I think is, um, uh, Zelensky and a spot that he can't get out of. I think is Zelensky in a spot that he can't get out of. I mean, we all know that Crimea is Russia. He can't consent to that and expect to stay alive, can he?

I think that's correct. I mean, this was a deal that Zelensky was never going to accept, nor were his lieutenants going to accept this deal. It was just unacceptable. But I would add to that, it's a deal that the Russians are not going to accept. On all three of the principal demands that the Russians put forward, this proposal satisfies none of them, zero for three. So this deal was just going nowhere to begin with. Is the piece in the Financial Times, which claims that President Putin agreed only to Russian permanent occupation of the Oblast up to the battle line as it is today, as opposed to where he originally set out. Is that credible? No. And in fact, his spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, very diplomatically dismissed that article.

And it is slowly but steadily moved off the website of the Financial Times dismissed ago, but you're right, now you can't find it. I think the reason he was diplomatic is because I think he and his colleagues regularly leak to the Financial Times, so it's their own collaborators that printed something that they say is not true. Well, I have a somewhat different interpretation. I think that it's important to understand that there are two wars that are taking place here. important to understand that there are two wars that are taking place here. One is the war on the battlefield and the other is the war over the narratives. Each side has a narrative as to who's responsible. And what the Russians are trying to do, and smartly from their point of view, is they're trying to look reasonable and they're trying to go to great lengths to go along with President Trump and not develop an adversarial relationship with him. They want to let the Ukrainians do that

and up to this point it looks to me like the Russians are winning the war of narratives in a serious way. I think you're right about the Russians winning the war of narratives. I mean, what happens if Trump turns off the spigot? Or let me ask you another question first. Why do you think Trump has not turned off the spigot? Why did this man of peace who says he wants the Nobel Peace Prize suddenly become John McCain?

Well, I think that he didn't cut off the spigot because he doesn't want to see Ukraine then quickly collapse and he ends up getting blamed for it. I think that he believes that there's a better alternative here and that is to work out a negotiated settlement. That way he not only doesn't get blamed, but maybe he wins a Nobel Peace Prize. So I think this is what he's up to. The problem he faces, as I said a minute ago, is that there's no peace agreement that he could push forward that both sides will accept. So he's just, in effect, wasting his time. Right, right. I just don't see how this can be resolved peacefully because of the intransigence on both sides. In my view, President Putin is correct historically and culturally and dominant militarily. On the other hand, what is Zelensky going to do

given the people that surround him? What would happen if the spigot were turned off now? Do you think the Europeans would attempt to replace American military aid? Well, you wanna remember that the Ukrainians are doing badly on the battlefield, even with all the weaponry and assistance they're getting through the pipeline that Biden created. But they're still, the Ukrainians are still doing very badly on the battlefield.

If you were to cut off the flow of armaments and the cutoff intelligence support for the Ukrainians, the military would collapse quite quickly. I think once the Biden weaponry and the Biden material support that we have been providing Ukraine dries up, it'll just be a matter of months before Ukraine collapses. In fact, Ukraine might even collapse with the Biden weaponry and Biden material coming through because they are in terrible shape and the Russians are getting ready to launch a major offensive. But it's hard for me at this point to imagine the Ukrainians hanging on in any meaningful way beyond 2025. Before we migrate over to Israel

and Prime Minister Netanyahu's woes, I wanna ask you about Secretary of Defense Hegseth. You are, of course, a graduate of West Point and a veteran of the United States Air Force in addition to your spectacular academic credentials. How do you think the troops feel about these allegations of his indifference, indifference towards the maintenance of state secrets? Well, my sense from reading the media is that the troops, and this would include a lot of the generals and admirals,

were very skeptical about him to begin with. He has no managerial experience. He's done a number of things in his lifetime that make him look like a person who doesn't really have good judgment, not the sort of person you'd want to be making important national security decisions. So I'm sure there were huge amounts of doubters, huge numbers of doubters in the Pentagon, in the military more generally before he took over. But I think that everything everyone has seen up to this point makes it clear that he's really not up for the job.

The whole business with these signal phone calls or signal calls show really serious lack of judgment. And so I think that there are probably a lot of people in the military who'd like to see him go. Chris, do we still have Congressman Moulton? Congressman Moulton is also an officer in the Army National Guard, the Democrat, the moderate Democrat from Massachusetts, pretty angry. Say, Seth continues to lie about this. He's not taking accountability for his own actions. And as a result, he cannot be trusted. He's clearly not trusted by his own closest advisors.

What do you think the troops think about it? Well, I know, because I've heard from a lot of them that they are disgusted by this behavior from the top person in the Pentagon, because they know that they would be fired in a heartbeat, probably prosecuted criminally, if they did what the Secretary of Defense has done and is now lying about himself. Of that young National Guardsman from Massachusetts, Jack Tashara, who's sitting in a jail cell for 15 years because he shared some military secrets with his buddies on one of these very chats. I don't know if it was Signal or Telegram or what it was. Does Congressman Moulton have a handle on this with which you agree? I agreed with him before I heard what he just had to say,

but the advantage that he has over me is he's actually talked to people in the military, where I have not, and they are saying what logic tells you. They are likely to say. I mean, the fact is that his behavior, I mean, if you just look at his relationship with his principal advisors, some of whom have been marched out of the Pentagon

and a number of whom look like they're no more competent than he is. And you say to yourself, these are the people who are running national security for the United States, or at least running the Defense Department. And it's kind of a frightening thought. Colonel McGregor's view is that President Trump

probably doesn't care. That Trump views himself as the ultimate decider and as long as he has loyalty and charm and good looks in his Secretary of Defense he doesn't care. Do you share that view? I mean if that's, it's very telling. Well, I think first of all, Trump appointed a number of people to important positions in his administration who I did not think were qualified for the job. This is not a case where I thought that people's views were wrong. I just didn't think they were competent. And I found it quite shocking that he appointed those people. And I think generally speaking, President Trump doesn't care that much about how competent certain people are who are filling certain positions. I think, though, you don't want to lose sight of the fact that there was not much daylight between Hexith and Trump, or there is not much daylight between Hexith and Trump

on China, Ukraine, and Iran. What Hexith would like to do is he'd like to end the war in Ukraine. He'd like to strike a deal with Iran and he'd like to concentrate on containing China and all at the same time keeping his mouth shut on the genocide in Gaza. And that's basically Trump's policy. I think you could make an argument that the four people who are sort of with Trump are

Musk, Steve Witkoff, JD Vance, and Hexith. So I think that Hexith is someone who Trump likes in good part because there's not much daylight between them on the key policy issues. Nice observation. Here's someone else that Trump likes. I wish there were daylight, but apparently there's not. This in my view is a attempted justification for using starvation as a war technique by a person who holds himself out to be a Christian pastor. Chris, cut number 12. Hello, I'm Mike Huckabee, U.S. ambassador to Israel. This past weekend, Dr. Hanan Balkhi, who is the regional coordinator

for the WHO for the Eastern Mediterranean region, called upon me to put more pressure on Israel to bring humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza. I appreciate the message from Dr. Balke. And today, what I would like to suggest is that we work together on putting the pressure where it really belongs on Hamas to give us the opportunity to open up those humanitarian channels. So we call upon Hamas to sign an agreement

so that humanitarian aid can flow into Gaza to the people who desperately need it. When that happens and hostages are released which is an urgent matter for all of us then we hope that that humanitarian aid will flow and flow freely knowing that it will be done without Hamas being able to confiscate and abuse their own people, but are not allowing those resources to get to the people who desperately need it. I thought this was reprehensible, but what do you think? Yeah, I think reprehensible is a good word. I was going to say disgusting.

That's funny, I was going to say disgusting also also and I've known Mike. I've known him. I worked with him for 10 years. It's hard to believe. But so what is Huckabee saying? If Hamas doesn't cave and almost everybody agrees that Hamas is not going to cave, he's willing to starve to death hundreds of thousands of people. That's what he's saying. Yes. This is a good Christian. This is a guy who gives Christianity a bad name. Yeah. Is there daylight between this guy and Donald Trump? I don't think there is.

Trump must know what's going on. He must know that the Israelis have executed aid workers and have blocked food, medicine, and water from coming in. He must know this. I think it's 52 days now have gone by where no aid has come in to Gaza. 52 days. People are starving. They're going to start dying in significant numbers. What is Trump doing? Nothing. Hardly anybody is saying anything. And then you have people like Huckabee who are basically justifying what the Israelis are doing. Which is truly remarkable. In the past week, Avigdor Lieberman, a member of the Knesset and former Minister of Defense

under Netanyahu, claimed, posted on X a claim that American sources have told him that Trump is getting sick and tired and fed up with Netanyahu. In the same week, Yair Lapid, who is the opposition leader in the Knesset, says to expect, regrettably, to see Jews killing Jews very soon. And in the same week, the Israeli stooge, who holds himself out as the president of the PLO, says it's time for a mosque to throw down their arms. What kind of a mess is Netanyahu's Israel in? He's in a total mess.

It's very hard to say what's gonna happen inside of Israel. I've noticed there is a significant uptick recently in talk about civil war. Going back to the period before October 7th, in early 2023, there was a lot of talk about civil war in Israel and it's died down somewhat since October 7th, but it's began to tick up again. And this tells you that the centrifugal forces at play in Israel run the real risk of tearing

that country apart. Second point I'd make to you, just about Trump, Yeah, I think he is sick and tired of Netanyahu and he'd probably like to see the genocide end. The problem that Trump faces is that on the Iran issue, he's probably gonna have to go against Bibi. He's gonna have to confront the Israelis and he's gonna probably push through an improved JCPOA, which will drive Netanyahu crazy and drive the Israel lobby crazy.

And the question you have to ask yourself is, can he afford to have a fight over Gaza and over Hamas at the same time he's having a fight over Iran. And I think the answer is no. And I think one of the reasons that he's not putting any pressure on Netanyahu over the genocide is in large part because he's stealing himself for the fight that he's going to have to wage with Netanyahu and with the Israelis and with the Israel lobby over the deal that looks like it's gonna reach fruition regarding Iran's nuclear program if this

JCPO a lake deal comes to pass and If Trump says to Netanyahu, no, we are not going to help you invade or attack Iran. And if the Israelis attack Iran anyway, what does Trump do? Well, I think that Trump will go to great lengths to prevent that from happening. If he gets a JCPOA, an improved version of the JCPOA, one that doesn't have sunset clauses, and he begins to take heat, I think he'll defend it just the way Barack Obama defended it.

And I think he'll go to great lengths to put pressure on the Israelis not to attack Iran on their own. I find it hard to believe as foolish as Netanyahu is sometimes, that he would attack Iran if Trump was adamantly opposed. And I think we have the leverage to prevent that from happening. But if we didn't and the Israelis attacked Iran in the face of us having signed a JCPOA agreement, I think Trump would go to work against the Israelis.

I think he'd really have no choice at that point. The Israelis would have thrown down the gauntlet and there would be no way that Trump could just simply cave. With apologies to turning your stomach, here's a clip from a woman named Sharon Haskell, who is the Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel and the official spokesperson. As you'll see when a reporter asks, why can Israel have an atomic weapon and Iran cannot? Chris? Iran cannot have nuclear weapon. And this is what's in front of us. We understand it's not just a threat to Israel, but to the entire world.

What about Israel? Israel is not posing a threat to anyone. We don't have any ambitions in any other country. Iran has ambition in the entire Middle East. And so Iran is a threat to the entire world. And Israel is at the front line, at the front line of stopping the worst enemy the world can... And I don't understand that question.

With all respect, the question was not about Iran. Who is Israel posing a threat on? Israel has never provoked, has never attacked unprovokably a neighboring country or someone else. This has always been on the defense of our country and our people. We have no ambition. Israel is the key for stabilizing the Middle East. So if Iran abandons its nuclear program, Israel will do the same? Israel is what's stabilizing the Middle East. Iran is what's destabilizing, arming, and terrorizing the entire population around.

And so this arming Iran is not Israel's interest, it's your interest. It's international community's interest. Try and imagine what is happening right now in the Middle East with Iran's nuclear weapons. It's not just a threat on Israel, it's a threat on the entire world. Where to start? Yeah, where to start. I would remind her that the Israelis initiated the 1956 war, they initiated the 1967 war, they initiated the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. There's three big examples. I can't think of a single case where Iran initiated a war. And so I think it's quite clear that it's the Israelis,

if any country that's destabilizing the Middle East. And if you look at what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians and the consequences that it has for the region, it's quite clear that Israel is the main disruptive force in the Middle East. And she never answered the question as to why Israel can have nuclear weapons.

Has any Israeli official ever, as far as you know, since the Jonathan Pollard days or whenever the technology was stolen and refined, ever answered that question? No, and they can't for the simple reason that they do not acknowledge that they have nuclear weapons. Both the Israelis and the American government do not acknowledge that Israel has nuclear weapons, right?

And if it appears accidentally in a document that we say, an official government document, where we say that Israel has nuclear weapons, that mistake is automatically noticed and the document is changed. So we pretend that they don't have nuclear weapons. And they of course pretend as well. So you're not going to get any Israeli leaders. Why do we go through that pretense? Because they want us to and we basically do what they want on most issues as you know. Right. Professor Meir Shamber, thank you very much. I know you're traveling and lecturing. I deeply appreciate your time and your analysis as always.

Safe travels and we'll look forward to seeing you again next week. Thank you, Judge, my pleasure to be here. Thank you, thank you. And it's always a pleasure to be able to chat with the great John Mears Charmer. Coming up tomorrow, Friday, end of the day, end of the week, the Intelligence Community Roundtable

with Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern at four o'clock in the afternoon. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. You