Judging Freedom - Prof. John Mearsheimer : China In the Wings

Episode Date: July 3, 2024

Prof. John Mearsheimer : China In the WingsSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the Bay with WGU. WGU is an online accredited university that specializes in personalized learning. With courses available 24-7 and monthly start dates, you can earn your degree on your schedule. You may even be able to graduate sooner than you think by demonstrating mastery of the material you know. Make 2025 the year you focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, July 3rd, 2024, the day before Independence Day in America. We have a long holiday weekend coming up. us at this time that is not your regularly scheduled time in order to accommodate our viewers and our wish to get our first rate guests in before the holiday weekend is upon us. Very much appreciated, my dear friend. While we are all talking about Joe Biden and Donald Trump and their so-called debate last Thursday night, while we're all

monitoring the Russian response to the attack on Sabastopol, which the Russians believe, and there's much evidence to believe, could not have happened but for American involvement, while Prime Minister of Israel Netanyahu is saying he's ready to fight on seven different fronts. What are our friends in Beijing doing? Well, I don't think they're doing much that is provocative beyond the sort of back and forth that they're having with the Philippines over this small shoal in the Spratly Islands. I mean, that's a potentially very dangerous situation. And the Filipinos and the Chinese are going back and forth there.

And it could turn into a major league crisis and we could get dragged in even to a shooting match with the Chinese. But I don't think that's likely at the moment. And I think besides that possible flashpoint, the Chinese are not doing anything to take advantage of the giant mess that we're in. And I think this is by and large a result of the fact that the Chinese have a good number of problems on the home front that they want to deal with. And furthermore, it's hard to see what they can do on the foreign policy front to take advantage of the United States that would ultimately work to their advantage. I'm going to ask you about the nature of the relationship between China and Russia in a minute. But you mentioned the Philippines. President Putin on July 1st, just two days ago, speaking in Moscow, talked about the United States putting missiles that were banned under the treaty that Trump withdrew us from in 2019 in Denmark and in the Philippines.

If President Putin is correct, why would the United States be putting missiles in the Philippines but to be provocative towards China? I don't think that the United States is trying to be provocative. I think what the United States is interested in doing is improving its deterrence capability in East Asia. The fact is that if you put the United States up against China in East Asia, and if you include America's allies with the United States, you're up against a very formidable adversary. China is effectively a giant aircraft carrier. It has thousands and thousands of missiles. And the United States feels that it's at something of a disadvantage. And for that reason, it's increasing its missile capability and other capabilities in Asia as well. Before I ask you about the nature of the relationship, some sort of a friendship between Russia and China, just to bring back and refresh your memory. Here is the man who opened up the United States to China in 1972.

Here he is talking about it in 1983, cut number three. The most indispensable factor in guaranteeing the security of Taiwan is a good relationship between the United States and Peking. If we have that relationship, that may restrain them. If Peking has a relationship like that with the Soviet Union, then Taiwan is in mortal danger. Okay, this is about Taiwan. He's obviously talking about Beijing. It was pronounced Peking at the time. He's obviously talking about Russia. It was the Soviet Union at the time. Does Nixon's analysis make sense in 2024? Yeah, it really does. It'd be very interesting to see what Nixon would say if he were alive today regarding the evolution of relations between Russia and China. You want to remember that he was the person who improved relations with China during the Cold War, so that in a very important way, it became China plus the

United States versus Russia. In the first half of the Cold War, the Chinese and the Russians, or the Chinese and the Soviets, were allied, much the way they are today. And Nixon and Kissinger recognized that this was not to America's advantage. It made much more sense for us to form an alliance with the Chinese against the Soviet Union for purposes of containing the Soviet Union. And Nixon made that happen. What's happened today is that the United States, because of its remarkably foolish foreign policy, has terrible relations with the Russians. As we've talked about many times, we're effectively

fighting against the Russians in Ukraine, and we've pushed the Russians and the Chinese together, which makes no sense at all. What is the relationship between Russia and China today? Is it an alliance? Is it a defense alliance? If Russia is involved in a two-front war against Ukraine and against Israel and supporting Iran? I know the second one is a big if. Can it call upon China for help?

Well, it could ask for military assistance in the form of weaponry. It could ask for diplomatic support should something happen at the United Nations. But I think it's extremely unlikely that the Russians would ask for military help in the sense that they'd ask for Chinese troops to engage in the fighting, either in Ukraine or in the Middle East. You don't have a really tight alliance here. There's no question that these two countries have been pushed together so that they help each other in all sorts of ways. But in the scenario that you described, it's hard to imagine the Chinese coming into the actual fighting on the side of getting a little bit into the weeds in history, that Nixon tape was in 1983. After the Jimmy Carter era legislation of the one China policy, and he's still talking about protecting Taiwan, was he still wearing his old pre-72 Cold War hat? There are two Chinas. Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the Bay with WGU. With courses available online 24-7 and monthly start dates, WGU offers maximum flexibility so you

can focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu. Well, I think that what Nixon wanted was his cake and eat it too. In other words, he understood that in a very important way, he had to sell the Taiwanese down the road to get an alliance of sorts with China. In other words, to flip China out of the Soviet side of the equation and move them over to the American side of the equation. He had to sell the Taiwan East down the road, but he wanted to do everything he could at the same time to keep Taiwan as a de facto independent country. And the fact is that we have succeeded at doing that up to this point. Despite the fact we pay homage to the one China policy, the fact is at the same time, Taiwan remains a de facto independent country. And that's in large part because the United States is back Taiwan. Would it be wise or would it be foolish for us to resist mainland China militarily if they began some military effort to take over the government of Taiwan? Well, I'm in favor of making sure that Taiwan can defend itself so that that scenario is never

realized. But I'm one of a number of people who would defend Taiwan if the Chinese attacked it, because I think Taiwan is of great strategic importance. I know that you and many others, including many of my realist friends, disagree with me on that. I think that Taiwan is not worth defending. Didn't you say just a few minutes ago that even with our allies, were we to attempt to resist China militarily, they would present the more formidable force. Well, there's no question that over time, China becomes a more formidable threat when it comes to conquering Taiwan. I think at the moment, we are actually in excellent shape in terms of defending Taiwan. You want to remember, you don't want to think about this in terms of winning a war against China over Taiwan. If the Chinese were to try to take Taiwan, there would be no winners, in my opinion. And that provides

lots of deterrence. So I think that really all that is necessary here is for the United States to make it clear to China that they can't win. We can't win as well, but they can't win a war over Taiwan either. clear that any victory would be a Pyrrhic victory, that would go a long way towards providing deterrence. And then finally, I would note, you want to remember that we're talking about two nuclear-armed great powers here. China has nuclear weapons, and the United States has nuclear weapons. So I think in terms of sort of heading off a war between Taiwan, between the United States and China over Taiwan, it should be possible for the United States to achieve that goal, certainly in the short term, but even over the long term. Let's go from Beijing to Western Europe. What is the message that French voters have sent to President Macron? Stop talking

about sending the French Foreign Legion to Ukraine? Well, I think the problems in France go much deeper than Ukraine. I think there's no question in Ukraine, like in many other countries around the world, including the United States, there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the governing elite's policies towards Ukraine. And this, of course, includes Macron. And Macron, as we all know, fully supports America's or NATO's policy towards Ukraine. And I think that dissatisfaction with that particular policy contributed to Macron's defeat in the recent election. But I don't think that is by any means the principal reason that he's in so much trouble.

Would you say the same for the likely ouster in 36 hours of Prime Minister Sunak and the likely installation of Sir Keir Starmer as Prime Minister in Great Britain. It does reflect dissatisfaction with foreign affairs, but there are a lot of domestic issues more profound weighing in on the voters' minds. Yeah, I agree with that completely. And I think, by the way, the same thing is true in the United States. I think there is a lot of dissatisfaction as reflected on your show with America's policy in Ukraine, but it's not the principal reason that there is so much dissatisfaction in the United States regarding where this country is going. If you look at the Western liberal democracies, you can put aside foreign policy, you can put aside Ukraine, and you still

see a huge amount of evidence with unhappiness about the direction that the various countries in the West are heading in. If the President of the United States were to call you, I don't necessarily mean Joe Biden or Donald Trump, whoever the President might be, and ask for your advice on whether America should put troops on and lease bases from Finland, where it is now contemplating doing that on between 12 and 15 bases along the 800-mile common border that Finland has with Russia. How would you advise the president if that question were put to you, Professor Mearsheimer? That's the easiest question you've asked me this morning. Okay.

Absolutely not. I mean, that would be insane. But you know they're doing it. Go ahead, please. No, I think you're right. And if you look at what they're going to do at the NATO summit, right, I've been reading about, you know, what we're going to do at the NATO summit to reassure the Ukrainians. What you see is that we're going to do at the NATO summit to reassure the Ukrainians, what you see is that

we're going to go to greater and greater lengths to make Ukraine a de facto member of NATO. We've reached the point where we understand, I think quite clearly, that we can't make Ukraine a de jure member, a formal member of the alliance. So what we've decided to do is make it a de facto member. This is a prescription for disaster for Ukraine. It's just crazy that we're doing this. And the idea of putting troops in Finland is nuts, because all it's going to do is provoke the Russians. It's going to cause tensions in the region, and it's going to give the Russians greater incentives to wreck Ukraine, cause trouble in Europe, cause trouble in transatlantic relations, and so forth and so on. I just don't understand what these people are thinking. And all at the same time, we're up to our eyeballs in alligators in the Middle East.

And furthermore, there is, as we were talking about at the start of the show, potential for trouble involving the Filipinos and the Chinese where we might get dragged in in East Asia. I want to get to the Middle East with you in a minute, but this decision of which I was informed by Pepe Escobar and corroborated by Scott Ritter. These two have, you know, sources in the military, in the intelligence community, even in the Russian community. Who would have made this decision? The president?

I mean, this is profound. This is the equivalent of the Russians putting troops in Mexico along the Rio Grande, isn't it? Yeah. I mean, and you also want to remember, this is why the Russians did not want Ukraine in NATO, because their great fear was that we would end up stationing American troops or NATO troops and American weapons, possibly nuclear weapons in Ukraine. And from the Russian point of view, this was an existential threat and therefore it was verboten. But you're exactly right. You start putting troops and bases in Finland, you're really asking for trouble. But we like to ask for trouble, especially when it comes to the Russians. In your view, could a decision like this have been made without presidential authorization, given the movement of resources, assets, and human beings?

No, I think this is definitely a presidential decision. I mean, I'm sure that Biden was fully briefed and he was fully aware of what he was doing. Biden is a super hawk when it comes to foreign policy, and he's especially hawkish when it comes to Ukraine. And he understands that NATO is in real trouble and the Ukrainians are in real trouble in their war with Russia. And they're doing everything they can now to double down, which is what they've been doing, which is what Biden has been doing since he moved into the White House in January 2021. evidence that the American government is responsible for the attack on the beach in Sevastopol two Sundays ago? And if they believe it, and I think you're going to say they do, because they say they do, what is the likely military, if any, response? Long question, my apologies. Yeah, well, they definitely think that we're responsible. Certainly, they understand that the Atakams missiles are our missiles that we gave responsible. Certainly they understand that the ATAKOM's missiles are our missiles that we gave to the Ukrainians. Furthermore, we're providing the Ukrainians

with intelligence so that they can launch these missiles at particular targets. And as we've talked about before, there's all sorts of evidence that the Americans are helping the Ukrainians program the missiles and fire them. That's not to say that our fingers are on the trigger, but even there, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. So, yeah, the Americans are involved in this and the Russians understand this. And the question is, what are they going to do in response? And that's very hard to say. There's been talk that that what they'll do is now give more sophisticated missiles to the Houthis, to Hezbollah, and other adversaries of the United States in the greater Middle East. That's a possibility. So one can posit a variety of scenarios. But as I said

to you the last time I was on the show, I think the Russians are doing very well on the battlefield, and they have a vested interest in not escalating the crisis with the United States. So I would not expect them to do anything that is too radical or too drastic. I think they want to keep a cap on the volcano here and just continue to wear down the Ukrainians on the battlefield. Prime Minister Netanyahu says he can fight a war on seven fronts at the same time. This clip is a little long. It's about 90 seconds. And if you're not a fan of BBibi, this is heavy duty Bibi,

but we're going to play it for you because I really want your thoughts on it. Cut number five, please. And Iran is fighting us on a seven front war. Obviously, Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, the militias in Iraq and Syria, Judea, Samaria, West Bank, Iran itself. They'd like to topple Jordan. And their goal is to have a combined ground offensive from various fronts, coupled with a combined missile bombardment. We have to, we've been given the opportunity to scuttle it, and we will. The first requirement is to cut that hand, Hamas.

People who do this thing to us are not going to be there. We'll have a long battle. I don't think it's that long, but we'll get rid of them. We also have to deter the other elements of the Iran terror axis. But we have to deal with the axis. The axis doesn't threaten only us. It threatens you. It's on the march to conquer the Middle East. Conquer the Middle East. Conquer the Middle East.

Conquer. That means actually conquer. Conquer Saudi Arabia. Conquer the Arabian Peninsula. It's just a question of time. And what's standing in their way is the small Satan. That's us on the road to the middle-sized Satan. That's the Europeans. They're always offended when I tell them that.

You're the great Satan, not them. Okay. And we have to stop them. He can't defeat Hamas. His IDF has said that numerous times as recently as yesterday. How can he possibly expect to wage all those wars against Houthi, Hezbollah, and Iran itself? He can't. He's blowing smoke. There were actually three very interesting articles in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal yesterday, July 2nd, that really show how much trouble Israel is in. The first two articles, which were in

the Wall Street Journal, said, first of all, that Iran is in very good shape these days, that Iran has improved its position in the world, it's become something of a worldwide power. And then it went on to describe why Iran is doing quite well. Then the second article, the second and third articles both dealt with the whole question of the Israelis' capability to deal with Hamas. And it's quite clear from those two articles that the IDF is in real trouble, that the military wants a ceasefire in Gaza because the military forces are worn out. They need a break. And when you think about them attacking Hezbollah at this point in time, it's hard to see how they can pull that off.

Again, the military is asking Netanyahu for a ceasefire in Gaza because they are worn out. They are running out of weapons. This is what the article says in the Wall Street Journal. With all we're sending them, they're at the head of the line. With all we're sending them, they're running out of weapons? That's right. That's right. That's what the article said.

And they want a ceasefire. The IDF wants a ceasefire in Gaza. And you start saying to yourself, if they want a ceasefire in Gaza, how are they going to invade Lebanon and defeat Hezbollah? I mean, again, as we've talked about, they invaded Lebanon in 1982 and again in 2006. And both of those operations ended up with a disastrous outcome. Nobody can tell a story these days about how they invade Lebanon, defeat Hezbollah, end that threat once and for all, and live happily ever after on the northern front. That's not going to happen. And the same thing is true with regard to Hamas. Hamas has won the war against the IDF. Nobody says this in the mainstream media in the

West because it's politically unacceptable. But the fact is the IDF has been unable to defeat Hamas. As these articles make clear, Hamas is alive, and I don't want to say well, but it is able to continue the fight. So they have not defeated Hamas. They cannot defeat Hezbollah. Iran is actually in relatively good shape, and there's nothing the Israelis can do about that. And the West Bank, he talked about the West Bank. The situation on the West Bank hasn't settled down. So the Israelis are in deep trouble on multiple fronts. What do you think the United States will do?

Chris, can you put up the full screen? Or Sonia, do you have that full screen? U.S. sends amphibious assault ship to show support for Israel amid Lebanon tensions. The United States has deployed an amphibious assault ship to the Middle East to demonstrate support for Israel amid soaring tensions in the Lebanon-Israel border. I mean, Professor Mearsheimer, is this just pabulum for show, or is the United States Navy about to go over there? What we're trying to do is deter the Israelis and Hezbollah, and ultimately the Iranians as well. The nightmare scenario for us is a war between Hezbollah and Israel that brings in not only the United States, but Iran. And now we're beginning to get to the point where people are even talking about the

possibility of the Russians coming in because the Russians are deeply involved in Syria. The Russians are in bed with the Iranians these days, and there is a real possibility, I don't think it's likely, that the Russians could get involved in the fighting. So we want to go to enormous lengths to shut down the possibility of any war between the IDF and Hezbollah. And I believe that what the Biden administration is doing here is sending these forces into the think of things all for the purpose of sending the signal to the two sides to try to avoid a war. I have asked you this before, so forgive me. What foreign policy geopolitical benefit is there to the United States for all we do for Israel?

As I've said to you before, there's none. Very important to understand that Israel is an albatross around our neck. The principal reason that we have an Israel lobby in this country and the reason that the Israel lobby has to work overtime to maintain America's close relationship with Israel is because there is no good strategic rationale and there is no good moral rationale for supporting Israel the way we do. You want to remember we give Israel unconditional support. No matter what Israel does way we do. You want to remember, we give Israel unconditional support. No matter what Israel does, we support Israel. And this is not in the American national interest. And because it's not in the American national interest, and because Israel is a strategic

liability, we need a domestic lobby, or Israel needs a domestic lobby to coerce American policymakers to pursue policies that provide unconditional support for Israel. And that domestic lobby is the most influential domestic lobby in the country today. You've written the book on it. Yeah, I think there's no question about it. It's truly amazing. And there's a new book coming out on it too, by a very distinguished Israeli historian, Ilan Pape, that people should look at. But, you know, when Steve and I wrote the article in 2006, and then the book in 2007, most people didn't talk much about the lobby. Most people in the

public didn't know that there even was a lobby, much less that it was a really powerful lobby. I think at this point in time, given all that's happened, especially since October 7th, virtually any American who follows foreign policy reasonably closely, understands there is a lobby, and they understand that this lobby has awesome power. Wow. Professor Gilbert Doctorow, whom you know, unprovoked from me, said this morning that at the rate Bibi Netanyahu is going, he will be the last prime minister of Israel. Is there a basis to make that argument in your view? No, I don't think Israel is going away anytime soon. One could argue, I'm not arguing it because I'm not sure how to think about this to be perfectly frank, but one could argue that the Zionist enterprise is ultimately doomed, but not in the short term, only in the long term. And I think that anybody who says that

that Bibi Netanyahu is going to be Israel's last prime minister, which implies that there will be no more Israel after him, I think is simply wrong. Got it. Professor Mearsheimer, thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your analysis as always. A happy Independence Day to you, West Point graduate. And, you know, I once went to watch the fireworks at West Point from a hill across the Hudson

River where we were looking down on the fireworks. My boss, Roger Ailes, had a home up there. But the West Point fireworks of the 4th of July are a sight to behold. You probably remember them from your youth. I do. That was a long time ago, but I remember them well. Got it. Have a great holiday weekend. I hope we can see you again next week. Yeah, you too. Happy 4th of July. Thank you. Thank you, Professor. Coming up, a great man, and I'm so privileged to be able to pick his brain. Coming up at noon today, Eastern, former Congressman Dennis Kucinich. At 2 o'clock Eastern, Colonel Douglas McGregor. At 3 o'clock Eastern, Phil Giraldi. You know all these folks. At 4 o'clock Eastern, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson. And worth waiting for

at 5 o'clock Eastern, Max Blumenthal, Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. I'm out. you