Judging Freedom - Prof. John Mearsheimer: Can US and Russia Have Enduring Peace?

Episode Date: January 23, 2025

Prof. John Mearsheimer: Can US and Russia Have Enduring Peace?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, January 23, 2025. Professor John Mearsheimer joins us now. Professor Mearsheimer, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you. I want to ask you ultimately what would be necessary for Russia and the United States to experience an enduring peace. But before we get there, some other issues. This week, President Trump threatened President Putin, says he is ruining Russia, claimed Russia has suffered a great deal more casualties than any credible statistics that you or I have seen, and offered to impose more sanctions on Russia if President Putin doesn't sit down

when Trump wants him to and negotiate with President Zelensky. Some of this has brought laughter in Moscow since about the only thing that's not sanctioned from Russia to the United States is something the U.S. needs, which is uranium for power plants. I don't even know if Trump is aware of that. And the number is relatively small, given the scale of these things. It's only about $320 million a year. Okay. Bottom line, does Trump know what he's talking about? I don't understand what Trump is doing here. It's remarkably foolish. There's no question that he stands a reasonable chance of working out some sort of deal with the Russians. But for that to happen, he really has to deal with Putin in a sophisticated way. And he has to treat Putin

with great respect. He has to show appreciation for Russia's position. This is all absolutely necessary if he's going to get a deal. The idea that he can sort of slap Putin around and treat him like he's a second-rate citizen in the international system and force Putin to do what Trump wants him to do is ludicrous. I mean, I just don't understand what he's thinking here. Where is he getting his intel from if he's using Joe Biden statistics on the number of Russians killed, which he says is over a million? There is no credible source for that of which I'm aware at all. No, that's not even close. I mean, there are not even a million Russian casualties, which would include wounded plus killed and

wounded always outnumbered killed by around three to one. So the argument that over a million Russians have died in this war is not a serious argument. I don't know where he gets his numbers from. I mean, as you well know, Trump is not famous for sticking to the facts. He invents facts of his own. He creates his own facts. And this is just another example of it. But if he's using these facts in his own brain as a way of calculating what's going on here and using that as a basis for formulating and negotiating strategy, he's doomed to fail. Well, you know, in the same week that, well, not the same week, the same time period that he posted that clip of Jeff Sachs ripping into Netanyahu, he did have a major Mossad asset seated on the dais at his inauguration directly behind Hillary Clinton.

You'll see her in a minute. You know who she is. There she is, the lady with the clasped hands. You know who that is. That's Miriam Adelson herself on the dais behind Hillary Clinton. So what message is he sending to Netanyahu? I'll deal with Miriam, but I'll post a scathing personal attack on you. Well, I mean, I think that Trump understands that he's going to have to play hardball with Netanyahu at certain points over the next few years. And at the same time, he fully understands that he has to deal with the Israel lobby and he's going to try and walk a fine line. This is just evidence of that. Well, do you think he's going to give Netanyahu everything the way Joe Biden did? I know some of the Zionists claim that Joe slow walked some of the 2,000 pound bombs that they were dropping on people in tents. But for the most part, we know that through Joe Biden, the United States totally funded and financed the genocide in Gaza.

No question about that. Yeah, there's no question about that. But the fact is that Trump is in a very different situation vis-a-vis Netanyahu than Biden was. Biden and Netanyahu basically operated together in the context of what happened after October 7th. And here we're talking about the execution of the genocide in Gaza. But Trump is walking into a very different situation. The fact is that the Netanyahu government has just agreed to a ceasefire in Gaza. And the Israeli press is full of stories, you don't see this in the West, that basically Israel lost in Gaza. That Hamas is alive and well. It's basically running Gaza.

And Israel has no way of solving that problem. So this is the world that Trump is dealing with. He's dealing with a Netanyahu who is in a very different position than the Netanyahu that Biden had to deal with. How stable is Netanyahu in his job? Are you able to assess that? Well, it's hard to say for sure, but if you want to think about this, he had a narrow majority, his governing coalition inside of the Knesset, and Ben-Gavir has already pulled out. And Smotrich has said that he will pull out if the ceasefire doesn't end after the first phase. The first phase is approximately six weeks or 42 days. And then the second phase is another six weeks or 42 days. OK, so what Smotrich is saying is I will pull out just as Ben-Gavir did if you don't go back to war after the first phase.

And at that point, the government would collapse. Now, the problem that Netanyahu faces is that there are roughly 98 hostages, some of whom are dead, inside of Gaza. And at the end of the first phase, he only gets 33 of those hostages out. That means at the end of the first phase, there are 58 hostages left in Gaza. So if he goes back to war at the end of the first phase, those 58 hostages are not out. That would be a huge political problem for him. Let me just take this a step further. The other question you want to ask yourself is, what does he do if he resumes the war? Does he have a war-winning strategy? Does he now have the magic formula for defeating Hamas? Remember, he fought against Hamas for 14 months with Joe Biden's full assistance.

He pounded the living daylights out of the people in Gaza. He turned the Gaza Strip into rubble, and he failed to defeat Hamas. What's he going to do to defeat Hamas if he restarts the war? And the answer is, he has no strategy. So he is in really deep trouble. And getting back to your original question, it's not clear that he can survive over the next few months because of the Gaza ceasefire and what it means. Here's what Trump said. This is very Trumpian. It's all over the place, if you haven't seen it. Here's what Trump said when asked, do you think the ceasefire will hold? He says no, but then take a listen.

Cut number seven, Chris. Mr. President, that you can keep the ceasefire in Gaza and conclude the three phases of this deal. I'm not confident. It's not our war, it's their war, but I'm not confident. But I think they're very weakened on the other side. Do you support the two-state deal? Gaza, boy, I looked at a picture of Gaza.

Gaza is like a massive demolition site. That place is, it's really got to be rebuilt in a different way. Are you meant to help rebuilding Gaza? My, my. You know, Gaza's interesting. It's a phenomenal location. On the sea, best weather. You know, everything's good. It's like some beautiful things could be done with it but it's very interesting but some fantastic things could

be done with gaza how do you see the future in governance for gaza well it depends i can't imagine you could have well you certainly can't have the people that were there. Most of them are dead. It's not our war, it's their war, but it's a made in America war. And he certainly understands that. He has no intention of reducing the flow of cash and armaments, does he? No, I'd be shocked if he did. But again, it doesn't matter. He can give them more 2,000 bombs, 2,000-pound bombs. What are they going to do? Just make the rubble bounce? I don't understand what more 2,000-pound bombs are going to do. The fact is the Israeli army is in really bad shape. That's one of the reasons that the Israelis agreed to the ceasefire. The IDF desperately wanted a ceasefire. It is in serious trouble.

They have no military option for defeating Hamas. Trump is wrong when he basically says that Hamas is defeated. He's right that Gaza has largely been turned into rubble, but Hamas is alive and well. And this is a huge problem for Netanyahu politically, and it's a huge problem for Israel. I thought of you when Chris sent me the following clip. This is Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, who was President Trump's nominee to become U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, being interrogated very effectively right-wing Zionist historical view of the founding of Israel. Chris, number 16. I asked you in my office also about whether Palestinians have the right of self-determination. My understanding was you said yes. Do you have a different answer today? That was not the direct question that we discussed. I said the Palestinian people... You believe the Palestinians have the right of self-determination.

I believe the Palestinian people deserve so much better than the failures that they've had... We agree on that. It's just a pretty simple question. And I believe we need peace in the region. Of course they deserve human rights. So I want to ensure that, number one, we bring the hostages home. So do all of us. Representative Stefanik, let me just ask you. I have 30 seconds left. I'm rarely surprised by answers in my office, but I did ask you whether you subscribe to the views of Finance Minister Smotrich. Of who? I'm sorry.

Smotrich. This is the Israeli Finance Minister Smotrich and the former National Security Minister Ben-Gadir, who believe that Israel has a biblical right to the entire West Bank. And in that conversation, you told me that, yes, you shared that view. Is that your view today? Yes. Okay. I think when it comes to this very difficult issue, if the president is going to succeed at bringing peace and stability to the Middle East, we're going to have to look at the UN Security Council resolutions, not just the ones on Lebanon, which we should enforce, but other UN Security

Council resolutions. And it's going to be very difficult to achieve that if you continue to hold the view that you just expressed, which is a view that was not held by the founders of the State of Israel, who were secular Zionists, not religious Zionists. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, her views are absurd, but consistent with this Murtrach and Ben-Gavir. Well, I believe that this was a debate between the senator and Elise Stefanik about a two-state solution. And what Van Hollen, Senator Van Hollen, is saying is that the Palestinians have a right to self-determination, which means they have a right to have their own state. And of course, that state should be

in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip. And of course, many Israelis, not just Smotrich and Ben-Gavir, but many Israelis believed that there should be no Palestinian state. And of course, she was agreeing with that position, as you would expect from- Yeah, but she agrees with the position that God the Father gave this real estate to the Israelis 3,500 years ago, and therefore they own it today. This is ridiculous. You're going to get no argument from me on that, but that's a common argument you hear, because it's necessary to justify what Israel did to the Palestinians in 1948, 1967, and is trying to do today. Switching gears to where we started, which is Russia and the new American relationship with Russia,

here's another senator who claims to have Trump's ear. In my view, as much off the wall as Congresswoman Stefanik, and you'll know who this is in a heartbeat. Number four, Chris. This war will never end with Hamas in charge of Gaza, politically or militarily. Their days are numbered. And the next question for the world is what do we do about the Iran nuclear program? That's where we're going to move to next. There's diplomacy. There's a one in three chance you'll degrade the Iranian nuclear program through diplomacy. There's a 90% chance you'll degrade it through military action by Israel, supported by the United States. So the next topic I will be engaging in with President Trump

is to take this moment in time to decimate the Iran nuclear program because they're so exposed. What does that mean? Help Israel deliver a knockout blow. What does that mean? You're going to urge him to have Israel bomb Iran's facilities that are underground and would require U.S. military support to actually be effective? I'm going to urge the decimation of the Iranian nuclear program. I don't think diplomacy works. This is a religious Nazi regime. They want to destroy the Jewish state. They want to purify Islam and drive us out of the Mideast.

It would be like negotiating with Hitler. I am hoping there will be an effort by Israel to decimate the Iran nuclear program supported by the United States. And if we don't do that, it will be a historical mistake. Apologies for subjecting you to that. Is Donald Trump going to listen to that? Well, you want to remember that Donald Trump made it clear in his inauguration address that he does not want to start any more wars. Right. And here, Lindsey Graham is saying, let's start a war. Let's get Bibi and our buddies and let's attack the Iranians. Yeah. Yeah. This is hardly surprising. I would just note to Senator Graham that he's wrong about Israel having defeated Hamas in Gaza. And if you listen to him carefully, he said, now that Hamas has been defeated in Gaza,

it's time to move on to Iran. Well, the fact is, it's not time to move on to Iran in his story because Hamas has not been defeated. And it would be very nice if he could tell us how the Israelis can defeat Hamas, because I see no way, and I believe no Israelis see any way that Hamas can be defeated outside of murdering all the Palestinians in Gaza. What does the United States have to do to have enduring peace with Russia? Well, I think you would have to come up with a meaningful peace agreement that settled the Ukraine war. And that would involve at least recognizing Russia's annexation of the four oblasts in eastern Ukraine plus Crimea and admitting formally that Ukraine will never become part of NATO. And if we could do that, which we can't do, in my opinion, and I hope I'm wrong here, but I don't think we can do that, there's no way you're going to get a lasting peace. And this one's going to go on and on, just like the one in the Middle

East is going to go on and on. Would the United States, I'll use a charitable word, invite President Zelensky to leave office and begin negotiating with some other human being, at least one who has credibility as part of the structure of government? Because you know that Vladimir Putin's not going to sit down with, and Sergei Lavrov is not going to sit down with Zelensky. I mean, it is possible. It's also possible that politics inside of Ukraine itself will result in Zelensky being removed from power. It's very hard to see how this plays out. It's hard to see what Trump actually ends up doing.

Going back to where we started, Trump is trying to slap Putin around. The end result of this is that Putin is not going to budge. And we could end up in a situation where Trump is in a situation like the one that Biden was in, and Trump is forced to up the ante. And if you listen to him talk about how he's going to deal with Putin, if Putin doesn't agree to his terms, Trump's terms, it does seem like we're going to go back to where we were with Biden, being tough on the Russians. And in that case, one could argue Trump would be by President Zelensky as recently as two days ago in Davos, Switzerland. Chris, you can play them both back to back, 10 and 11. But will President Trump listen to Europe or will he negotiate with Russia and China without Europe? Europe needs to learn how to fully take care of itself so that the world can't afford to ignore it. It's vital to maintain unity in Europe

because the world doesn't care about just Budapest or Brussels. It cares about Europe as a whole. And Ukraine is already... And Ukraine is already stepping in to support the new Syria. Our ministers have been to Damascus, and we've launched a food aid program for Syria called Food from Ukraine. And we are getting our partners involved to invest in these delivers and in building food production facilities. And Europe could totally step in as a security donor for Syria time to

stop getting headaches from that direction. And Europe, together with America, should put pay to the Iranian threat. Much of this is ridiculous, Professor, and I'd like your views. Does he really think if Trump turns off the spigot that Europe will open theirs? And does he really think that he should be sending aid, which basically means American cash, to Syria of all places? Well, I think he's playing the Europe card because he has no other card to play. I think he understands that Trump wants to play hardball with Ukraine, and Trump would like to cut off a huge chunk of American aid to Ukraine. So the question is, if you're in his position, what do you do?

And I think he thinks the next best solution is to rely on the Europeans, treat Europe like it's united and powerful. And if it just does the right thing, maybe it can convince the Americans to stay in the fight and the Americans in a more influential Europe can pull Ukraine's chestnuts out of the fire. As you and I both know, this is delusional. Europe is in trouble and Europe is no substitute for the United States to help in Syria so that he makes Ukraine look good, makes Ukraine look like it's a strategic asset for the United States, not just a strategic liability. This doesn't matter very much in the final analysis. Professor Ramirshammer, thank you very much for your time, my dear friend. You're more than welcome, Judge. Very, very helpful, as always. We look forward to seeing you next week.

Definitely. Thank you. Coming up at 4 o'clock this afternoon, Professor Jeffrey Sachs. But this is really murderer's row. Wilkerson, Mearsheimer, Sachs, McGregor. Professor Sachs at 4, Colonel McGregor at 4.30. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.