Judging Freedom - Prof. John Mearsheimer: Does Trump Understand Russia?

Episode Date: February 27, 2025

Prof. John Mearsheimer: Does Trump Understand Russia?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, February 27th, 2025. Professor John Mearsheimer will be here with us in a moment. Does Donald Trump understand the Russian mind? But first, did you know that American homeowners have over $32 trillion in equity and criminals are targeting it with a growing scam the FBI calls house stealing? Scammers can transfer your title out of your name using a one-page document they can file behind your back with the government. And the scariest part?

You won't even find out about it until collection notices and foreclosure notices start arriving. The best way to protect your equity is with Home Title Lock's exclusive million-dollar triple lock protection. This service offers 24-7 monitoring, urgent alerts, and if fraud should occur, their U.S.-based restoration team will spend up to $1 million to undo the fraud and restore your title. So when was the last time you checked your title? If you're like me, the answer is never. That's why I've partnered with Home Title Lock.

When you go to hometitlelock.com, promo code judge, you'll get 30 days of free protection and a free title history report to lock in your peace of mind. Do it today. Go to hometitlelock.com, promo code judge. Professor Mearsheimer, welcome here and thank you very much for spending your time with us. Realism and Russia, that would be a recognition of Russia's legitimate claims to sovereignty and bona fide concerns about security without regard to ideology. You accept generally that definition? For sure. For sure.

Why is it that America, until Donald Trump came along, and maybe not, we'll talk about that in a minute, has rejected realism, has no concern for Russia's sovereignty, and no concern for its legitimate security needs? Two simple reasons. One is the profound Russophobia in the West, and especially in the United States, because of the widespread belief that Putin is responsible for Trump winning in 2016. But that profound Russophobia gets in the way of seeing things clearly. And then the other thing is that during the unipolar moment, when the Ukraine disaster was set in train, American foreign policy was not run according to realist dictates. It was run according to a liberal ideology. And that liberal ideology was very expansionist in nature. And it not only led to the forever wars,

it also led to this crisis with Ukraine. So I think those are the two key considerations. Is this part of American exceptionalism, that we are different, we are better, we know what's good for everybody else, our government system is better, will browbeat you into accepting it? Absolutely. I mean, that's the basic idea, to remake the world in our own image. We're the good guys. Anybody who doesn't have a liberal democratic system like us is a bad guy. And our basic goal is to transform those bad guys into good guys with the belief that we will all then live happily ever after. And has this attitude led to 900 foreign American military bases and a $900 billion annual American Defense Department budget?

Well, in good part it has, but you want to remember that a lot of those bases in that huge Pentagon budget came out of the Cold War, which was a different story than what we saw in the Unipolar moment. The really important question was what were we going to do when the Cold War ended, the Soviet Union shortly thereafter disappeared, and we were the most powerful state in the world. We could have drawn down our commitments all over the world, reduced the number of bases, spent much less money on defense, but again, we pursued this liberal foreign policy that was designed to remake the world. And the end result is that if anything, we increased the number of bases, we interfered in

the politics of more countries than we even interfered in during the Cold War, and we spent huge amounts of money. And we did this under Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. Absolutely. It's very important to understand that Donald Trump is the anomaly. And this is why so many Republicans and virtually all Democrats are screaming bloody murder about what Trump is doing with regard to U.S. relations with both Russia and the Europeans. I like to say that the Republicans and the Democrats are Tweedledee and Tweedledum. That's true as long as you exclude Trump. But if you bring Trump into the equation, the Republicans with him at the helm look very different than the Democrats.

Wow. And it is this mentality that animated Victoria Nuland and her neocon colleagues in the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency to perpetrate that coup in Ukraine in 2014, which is arguably when the war began. Yes. You want to remember that we focus on NATO expansion when we talk about what caused this war, the Ukraine war, that is. But it's important to emphasize that it was just not NATO expansion, because NATO expansion was part of a package deal. And that deal included EU expansion as well as NATO expansion. And it included a color revolution. In the case of Ukraine, it was the Orange Revolution. And the idea was that we were going to put into power in Ukraine someone who would be sympathetic to the West, and we would turn

Ukraine into a liberal democracy that was loyal to the United States. A liberal democracy loyal to the United States. Did people like Mrs. Newland, and I don't mean to pick on her, she's come to personify that attitude that Trump rejects. But did people like her, along with her colleagues at State and CIA, honestly think that the war in Ukraine could drive Vladimir Putin from office and that he would be replaced by somebody more likable to the U.S.? Well, I think initially they thought the United States was so powerful that it could just shove NATO expansion into both Georgia and Ukraine down the Russians' throat. You want to remember that we shoved NATO expansion down their throat in 1999, and then we did it again in 2004. And I think the widespread belief in the corridors of power in the United States, and this, of course was no really serious move on our part to prevent a

war in February of 2022. And this is why once the war started, we advised Zelensky to walk away from the negotiations. We thought we had the Russians right where we wanted them, and we would inflict a decisive defeat on them. I think it's this mentality that informed her thinking and, of course, the thinking of many others as well. This week, President Trump was visited by French President Macron and, as we speak, British Prime Minister Starmer. Do you think that they go to bed at night wondering and worrying, Macron and Stormer, if the Russians are going to invade them the next day? Are they really that naive? No, I don't think they believe that. I think they think that threat inflation is essential to keep their publics on board,

and also as a way to maybe convince the Americans that the boogeyman is coming and that Europe needs help from the United States, much the way it did in World War I. So this is economic. They want the American military industrial complex over there. It's much more than that. There's an important economic dimension, but it's very important to understand that a large-scale American military presence in Europe serves as a pacifier. The Europeans like being subservient to the United States because the United States keeps the peace. Their great fear is not so much that the Russians are going to attack in Western Europe. Their great fear is that the Americans are going to leave

and they're going to be left on their own. And they know what's happened in the past when they were left on their own. And it usually is not a happy ending. What do they think will happen if they're left on their own? That Putin will attack or that they'll have to spend more money on their military? Well, you want to remember that once Germany is on its own and Germany has to provide for its own security, it will think about the world much more differently than it does now, because now it has the United States sitting on top of it. Germany doesn't have nuclear weapons. What's going to happen if the United States leaves to Germany in the pursuit of nuclear weapons? Are they going to get their own nuclear weapons? Are they not? And furthermore, in between Germany and Russia, there is a lot of territory and there's a lot of potential for conflict in that piece of territory between Russia and Germany and a security competition could take place. So there are just all sorts of scenarios that are hard to predict that lead

to big trouble. And what you want to do if you're a European is you want to head this trouble off at the pass. And the best way to do that is to keep Uncle Sam firmly enmeshed in the European security equation. So the same Donald Trump who calls Zelensky a dictator, the same Donald Trump who says Zelensky talked Biden into giving him $350 billion, the same Donald Trump who said Ukraine started the war, also said he'd be in favor of French and British peacekeepers on the ground as if he has no idea what Vladimir Putin wants. Here he is. This is yesterday. Cut number 12. They spent $350 billion and Europe spent $100 billion. Now, does anybody really think that's fair? But then we find out a little while ago,

not so long ago, a few months ago, I found out that the money they spent, they get back. But the money we spent, we don't get back. I said, well, we're going to get it back. And we'll be able to make a deal. And again, President Zelensky is coming to sign the deal. And it's a great thing. It's a great deal for Ukraine, too, because they get us over there and we're going to be working over there. We'll be on the land. And, you know, in that way, it's this sort of automatic security because nobody's going to be messing around with our people when we're there. And so we'll be there in that way. But Europe will be watching it very closely.

I know that UK has said and France has said that they want to put, they volunteered to put so-called peacekeepers on the site. And I think that's a good thing. I mean, unless this is a negotiating ploy, I mean, he must know that Putin would never voluntarily accept any military pointing at Ukraine, whether it's NATO, whether it's United Nations, whether it's France and Great Britain, whether you call them warriors or peacekeepers? Let me just embellish what you said, coming from a slightly different angle. I think when you look at the administration and you look at what's going on in the foreign policy realm, you have to distinguish between what's happening behind closed doors, the actual decision-making process, and what's happening out in public. And let's start with regard to what's happening behind closed doors. Donald Trump and everybody at the top of his administration knows full well what the Russian demands are.

And the fact that Trump has said and others have said that a deal can be worked out means that we know what those demands are and we're going to meet those demands. Period. End of story. And this includes this crazy idea of peacekeepers and security guarantees and so forth and so on. Putin has made it unequivocally clear that that's unacceptable, and Trump has de facto accepted that. Now, that's the private discourse that takes place behind closed doors. Then there's the public debate. And the public debate is sort of a wild and crazy one, in large part because Trump is free to say whatever he wants. And because he likes to pontificate on a daily basis, and he doesn't pay much attention

to facts, and he's not very careful with his language, we end up in all these debates about what he really means and is he contradicting himself and so forth and so on i've gotten to the point where i just don't pay that much attention to what he says in public the question is what are they saying in private and i believe in private they know what has to be said they have already said it at least once to the russians and now the details have to be worked out. Wow. What about Americans on the ground in Ukraine? Surely he can't mean, well, hostilities are going on. He's not talking about putting American troops into Ukraine. He's made it unequivocally clear that that's not going to happen. The great fear here is that we're going to pull out of Europe.

I mean, if you really think about what's going on here, it just shows you how bizarre these public debates are. The Europeans are greatly fearful that we're leaving the continent. We're not going to put troops in Ukraine. He has made it clear, Trump, that there is going to be no American security guarantee. He said that in public. And if there's going to be no American security guarantee, there are going to be no troops in Ukraine. So this is not a serious issue. And by the way, there are not going to be British and

French troops in Ukraine either. There are not going to be any troops from the West physically located in Ukraine, because if they're put there, the Russians will target them and kill them. What did Macron and Starmer expect to get from Trump? I think they're both going home. Macron is home already. Starmer tomorrow or Saturday, empty handed. But what did they expect? I think what they wanted to do is see if they could convince him to change his tune on Ukraine, to sort of act like a softer version of Joe Biden, number one. And number two, if that doesn't work, they want to do everything they can to kiss up to him, to make sure that he's not so angry or so contemptuous of them that he pulls American

forces out of Europe. I think that's basically what they're doing. And I think they know that they're doomed on the Ukraine front, that Trump is not going to change his mind, and he's going to do everything he can to accommodate the Russians so that he can work out a deal over Ukraine. What is the basis for American hatred of Russia? It's complicated. I think some of it's residue from the Cold War. I think a lot of it has to do with the 2016 election and the belief that the Russians are responsible for Hillary Clinton's defeat. I think the social dimension is very important. Russia is a very conservative traditional society,

much like Hungary, and it's deeply offended by the sort of extreme liberal values that now exist in the West. And therefore you have a powerful ideological dimension at play. I also think it's due to the fact that the Russians have actually stood up to us, and they've made it clear that they are willing to fight against us. And if you look at what's

happening in Ukraine, they're not only fighting against us, they're going to win in the end. All these things combine to fuel a really profound Russophobia. Is there Russophobia throughout Europe, or is it just among the European elites because they want American troops there and all the economic and military benefits that American troops in their minds bring them? In my recent trip to Europe and just reading the media and talking to all sorts of European friends, I think the Russophobia there is about at the same level as it is here. I think it's worst in Britain of all the European countries. I think Britain is right up there with us at the top of the ladder, but it's profound all across Europe. Very interesting. I want to switch gears. Well, let me ask you the ultimate question.

Does Donald Trump have an adequate understanding of the Kremlin? I think he does. I don't think there's any doubt about that. I think that he understands that Putin is a tough customer. I think he understands that Putin is in the driver's seat. And I think he understands that he's going to have to accommodate the Russians in large part if he wants to get a deal over Ukraine. I think the big problem for Trump moving forward, and here we're talking mainly about Ukraine, is not the Russians. I think the big problem is the Europeans, and an even bigger problem is the Ukrainians. And the fact is that the Europeans and the Ukrainians do not want to cut a deal with Putin. And the deal that Trump appears to be working out is one that is antithetical to that. So the question is, let's assume that Putin and Trump work out a deal. What happens then with the Ukrainians and the Europeans? I think probably Trump can coerce the Europeans. He has a lot of cards to play with the Europeans.

They're not playing a powerful hand, and he can get them on board. But the Ukrainians are a different matter. It would be very difficult to get them to accept the parameters of the deal that appears to be on the table, if it is consummated, must include turning off the Biden-Trump spigot of military assistance to Ukraine, in which case they have no choice but to accept the deal. They'll have no armaments with which to repel the Russians. Well, the counter to that is that the Europeans will pick up the slack. And if you believe the Europeans cannot pick up the slack and that the United States will have coercive leverage over the Europeans, and I believe those two things, then the Ukrainians are pretty much on their own. And the Ukrainians on their own up against the Russians, it's really Bambi versus Godzilla. Why don't they just become like Austria or Switzerland, a neutral, prosperous, progressive country with a small military that trades with everyone? Well, this is in effect what lots of people who appear on your show have been arguing for for a long time.

We've argued that the best situation, it's not a great solution to the problem, but the best solution is to create a neutral Ukraine that doesn't threaten Russia and then have Ukraine do everything it can to have decent relations with Russia. But the number of people who make that argument are very small. And it's an argument that's been very hard to sell. I think it's an argument that Trump and his lieutenants have bought onto. I think they agree with us. But again, they may get that deal with the Russians. but the question is, can you get the Ukrainians and the Europeans on board? Switching gears, is there any question in your mind that Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to wreck the Gaza ceasefire? I do. I think the last thing he wants is a permanent ceasefire, because I think the ultimate goal that Israel has is to ethically cleanse the Palestinians from greater Israel.

And this includes the West Bank as well as Gaza. And although what's going on in the West Bank doesn't get as much attention as what's going on in Gaza, the Israelis are doing absolutely horrible things in the West Bank as they continue to do in the Gaza Strip. And their ultimate goal, again, is to drive the Palestinians out. And a permanent ceasefire will get in the way of that. What do you think will happen next week when the Arab League meets on March 4th? Will the resistance grow and stiffen, or will they look the other way? No, I mean, who knows for sure, but my guess is that the Arab League will come up with a plan for Gaza, and may even come up with a plan that includes the West Bank. But the question is, what will the Israelis do? And the Israelis will not pay any

attention to that plan. They're not going to accept an Arab plan. And furthermore, the Americans and the Europeans will back the Israelis up no matter what. So we'll be back to square one. Wow. Here's Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday, two days ago, addressing AIPAC. AIPAC is meeting in the U.S. He's addressing them remotely. I was scandalized at his last comment, which purports to be a joke about the use of pagers and beepers to murder innocent people, as we know the Israelis did in the thousands. Cut number one.

IDF forces will remain on the summit of Mount Hermon. You should really visit that place. It's a glorious sight. Cold, but a glorious sight. And in the adjacent buffer zone, we will remain for the foreseeable future. We will not allow the presence of the HTS organization or a new Syrian army in the area south of Damascus. Southern Syria will be demilitarized. As for Iran, we crushed a large part of Iran's terror axis through a series of powerful blows

which aroused the astonishment and admiration of the entire world. If you're holding beepers, don't worry about it. Don't worry. It's okay. What do you think? First, the Israeli insistence that the Syrian army vacate a portion of Syria for the IDF. And secondly, if you're holding beepers, don't worry, we won't kill you this time. Well, it's quite clear the Israelis are going to stay and probably try to annex a big slice of southern Syria. And by the way, they're staying in southern Lebanon as well. They've not left there, which they were supposed to do according to the terms of the ceasefire. And by the way, they've also said they're not going to abandon the Philadelphia corridor, which is the line between Egypt and Gaza, which they were obliged to do this Saturday when the second phase of the ceasefire is put in play.

So the Israelis, you know, they just do what they want. And again, the United States and the Europeans will back them no matter why. So what you see here is creeping annexation, and this is hardly surprising at all. You know, he talked about, Netanyahu talked about admiration for Israel. When I was young, there was a great deal of admiration for Israel in the United States and really around the world. But what's happened over time, and it's accelerated in the last few years, is that Israel has become a pariah state in almost all quarters. It's really quite remarkable. I believe here, even in the United States, there is a significant slice of the population that fully understands

what Israel has become and where Israel is headed. And of course, as I've said on a number of occasions on this show, this situation's only going to get worse with time. So Netanyahu may be gloating now, but he would think long and hard, as many Israelis and their supporters should think, about where this country is, where it's headed, and what that all adds up to, because this is not good. Did you observe admiration for Israel at your undergraduate alma mater, West Point? Oh, of course, because in those days, remember, I was there from 1966 to 1970, and the Israelis won the war in 1948. They won a war in 56, and then they won the 1967 war, which was widely viewed as a classic military victory on a par with the German victory against France in 1940. So they were very highly regarded. And furthermore, in those days, the Israelis were

considered David up against Goliath, because many of the myths that underpin that David versus Goliath worldview had not been shattered. But since, you know, the early 1970s, my thinking, and I think the thinking of large numbers of people, including many Israelis, about Israel itself has changed significantly. Professor Mearsheimer, it's a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for letting me pick your brain about all of this. As always, we appreciate it and we look forward to seeing you next week. And I look forward to seeing you as well. Thank you, Professor. All the best. Coming up at four o'clock this afternoon, Chief Sergeant Major Dennis Fritz.

Judge LaPolitano for judging freedom. I'm out.