Judging Freedom - Prof. John Mearsheimer: Russia, China, and Gaza.

Episode Date: December 8, 2023

Prof. John Mearsheimer: Russia, China, and Gaza. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. I'm Paul Tano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Friday, December 8, 2023. Professor John Mearsheimer, University of Chicago, joins us now. Professor Mearsheimer, it wouldn't, joins us now. Professor Mearsheimer, it wouldn't be Friday if you weren't here, but thank you very much for your time and your insight. I want to ask you some big picture questions about how Russia and China can maximize to their own advantage the events in Ukraine and Gaza. But before we get there, a couple of specific points I want to hit on to build up to that. What is, as your understanding

of the status of forces, the relationship between the forces in Ukraine now? Is it true that Ukraine is effectively lost and everybody but President Zelensky more or less acknowledges that? Well, I think that a lot of people make the argument that it's a stalemate and it's going to continue to be a stalemate. And I think you hear that from people in Ukraine and people in the West. But I think that is wrongheaded. I think it's not a stalemate. I think that the balance of power has shifted in terms of the Russians, and the casualty exchange ratio decisively favors them and will even favor them more moving forward. Furthermore, there is evidence that the Russians are beginning to

reconquer territory. And if you listen to the reports on the state of the Ukrainian military, it's quite clear that many of the fighting forces up on the front are in dire straits, and they can barely hold on. And now that the Americans and the Europeans more generally are not going to be able to give them much more weaponry, one can only surmise that this situation is going to get worse. So this is not a stalemate. This is a situation where the Russian juggernaut is moving forward. What was the phrase you used earlier? Casualty exchange ratio. What does that mean, Professor Mearsheimer? Well, in a war of attrition like this, you have two armies that are standing toe to toe and trying to bleed each other white. And

the question is, how many casualties are being suffered on each side? And the side that's losing more people is destined to lose the war of attrition. And the fact is that over the course of 2023, and certainly since the counteroffensive started in June of this year, the Ukrainians have been suffering many more casualties than the Russians. So the casualty exchange ratio, we like to say, favors the Russians over the Ukrainians. And this matters greatly because the Russians, to begin with, have a five to one advantage in manpower. So they can afford to lose more people. That is, the Russians can afford to lose more people.

But it's the Ukrainians who cannot afford to lose more people, who are losing, in my opinion, many more people than the Russians. So the Time Magazine article that, I don't expect you to get into President Zelensky's head, but we both read this long piece written by a reporter that President Zelensky and his team trusted. And the reporter spent several days with the president and his senior people, even traveled around Europe with him. Then he wrote this piece and he more or less trashed the president and said his own people say he's delusional. Is he delusional if he thinks the war can still be won? There's no question that he's delusional if he thinks

the war can be won. I think the interesting question is whether the Ukrainians can prevent the Russians from conquering more territory and continuing to inflict many more casualties on the Ukrainians than the Ukrainians inflict on the Russians. And my argument is that they cannot, that the Ukrainians are doomed to lose more territory, substantially more territory, and that the casualty exchange ratio is going to continue to favor the Russians over the Ukrainians. So ultimately, the Russians are going to win some sort of victory. We can discuss what that victory will look like, but it's hard to imagine Ukraine at this point in time winning in this war with Russia. Tell me if you think this gentleman is delusional. Here's a 90-second clip from the White House yesterday in which the president spoke to reporters for

television begging Republicans in the Congress to let him spend another $68 billion in Ukraine. But just listen to what he said, particularly at the end when he talks about Russian, I have to repeat this, it's hard to say, Russian troops fighting American troops. Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to speak to you today about an urgent responsibility the Congress has to uphold the national security needs of the United States, and quite frankly, of our partners as well. This cannot wait. Congress needs to pass supplemental funding for Ukraine before they break for the holiday resources. Simple as that.

Frankly, I think it's stunning that we've gotten to this point in the first place. While Congress, Republicans and Congressors are willing to give Putin the greatest gift he could hope for and abandon our global leadership, not just Ukraine but beyond that. If Putin takes Ukraine, he won't stop there. It's important to see the long run here.

He's going to keep going. He's made that pretty clear. If Putin attacks a NATO ally, then we'll have something that we don't seek and that we don't have today. American troops fighting Russian troops. American troops fighting Russian troops, if he moves into other parts of NATO. Extreme Republicans are playing chicken with our national security,

holding Ukraine's funding hostage to their extreme partisan border policies. And now they're willing to literally kneecap Ukraine on the battlefield and damage our national security in the process. Look, I know we have our divisions at home. Let's get past them. This is critical. Petty, partisan, angry politics can't get in the way of our responsibility as a leading nation in the world. We can't let Putin win. Say it again,

we can't let Putin win. It's in our overwhelming national interest and international interest of all our friends. Sounds like Lyndon Johnson circa 1966. Yeah. I mean, what's going on here is that Biden, for understandable reasons from his perspective, is desperate to figure out a way to get Congress to allocate that money for Ukraine. Ukraine is in deep trouble with the money. It's an even deeper trouble if it doesn't get this money. And all the evidence at this point is that Congress is not going to give Biden the money for Ukraine.

And this is disastrous from his point of view. So what he's doing is engaging in old-fashioned threat inflation. And he's making the argument that Ukraine is going to be conquered in total. And then once the Russians conquer Ukraine, they're going to be on the march into Eastern Europe. This is going to draw NATO or the United States into the fight. And the Russians are going to be on the march into Eastern Europe. This is going to draw NATO or the United States into the fight, and the Russians are going to be fighting the Americans. This is nonsense. As I have said for a long, long time now,

there is no evidence that the Russians are interested in conquering all of Ukraine. In fact, they would be remarkably foolish to do that. But let's assume that I'm wrong, and they do conquer all of Ukraine. In fact, they would be remarkably foolish to do that. But let's assume that I'm wrong, and they do conquer all of Ukraine. They're not going to conquer or try to conquer other countries in Eastern Europe. They don't have the military capability to do that. Furthermore, they would invariably end up in a fight with the United States or NATO more generally. And that's the last thing the Russians want. So I think the idea that the Russians are on the march and we're going to have to counter them in Eastern Europe ourselves is not a serious argument. But it does make political sense from Biden's point of view to make this argument because,, but he must know that what he's saying is untrue. He must know that Putin has no intent to conquer Ukraine or attack NATO countries in Eastern Europe. That's the last

thing Putin wants to do. So his threat that, don't give me the money, you're going to end up seeing American boys fighting Russian boys, is a bald-faced lie, is absurd, is a threatening, demeaning tactic to impose upon the American people. Am I right or am I getting carried away? You may be right, but there's another way of looking at this. I've watched over the years where people tell themselves fairy tales. They make up stories that they think are plausible, and then they repeat them over and over. And eventually, they come to believe that these fairy tales are the truth. And the fact is that President Biden and his lieutenants and most of the foreign policy elite in this country has been arguing for years

now that the Russians are bent on conquering all of Ukraine and then conquering more countries in Eastern Europe. I've argued from the beginning that this is ludicrous, but they probably now believe it. So you could make the argument he's not lying because he actually thinks this is the truth. Okay. Switching gears to the catastrophe in Gaza, I want to play for you a clip. I don't think we've played this for you, of Secretary Blinken talking about intent versus effect. Now, in fairness to him, he looks like he hasn't slept in a week.

He's not happy with the question. He's not even happy with his own answer, but it's instructive and it warrants your analysis. You've talked about what you made clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu and the War Cabinet, but what concrete and specific assurances have you gotten from them, if any. Based on what you heard from them today, are you confident Israel will follow the international laws of war in southern Gaza when it resumes its military operations? Thank you. SECRETARY BLINKEN. Thanks, Amara. So as I said, we made clear the imperative that before any operations go forward in southern Gaza, that there be a clear plan in place that puts a premium on protecting civilians as well as sustaining

and building on the humanitarian assistance that's getting into Gaza. And the Israeli Government agreed with that approach. Israel understands the imperative of protecting civilians, the imperative of humanitarian assistance, and will continue to work to ensure that that carries forward in practice. And again, as I said to the Prime Minister, to the War Cabinet, intent is obviously where you start, and it's vitally important. And I'm very confident in the intent, but results, of course, are fundamentally what matters. Now, I don't know, Professor Mearsheimer, if you think that he's playing word games here. So when he says Israel understands the imperative of protecting civilians,

I don't think Israel considers anybody in Gaza a civilian. Is that his out? Or is he being used by Netanyahu? Or did he just not have enough sleep that week? I think the fact is that Tony Blinken fully understands that the Israelis are purposely killing huge numbers of civilians. One could easily categorize this as a massacre. hinting publicly and privately that they want the Israelis to at least tone down their policy or their strategy of killing civilians. But the Israelis are doing hardly anything in that direction. And Blinken surely knows this. The $64,000 question is why aren't we putting any pressure on the Israelis to stop this? Blinken can tell us that he and President Biden are suggesting to the Israelis that they should limit their killing of civilians. But we have tremendous coercive leverage over the Israelis. We could easily bring this to a halt if we wanted, but we don't want to do that. We don giving them 2,000-pound and 1,000-pound bombs that do enormous amounts of damage.

We're not telling them that they can't go into Gaza City or can't go into the cities in southern Gaza. Israelis from pursuing this horrendous policy where huge numbers of civilians are being killed on a daily basis. Here's my friend and colleague Max Blumenthal, who spent many years living in Israel, American Jewish, harshly critical of the Netanyahu government, addressing this very issue on what Joe Biden could do to stop the slaughter. Well, the Biden administration could end the occupation of Palestine tomorrow. They could have a Palestinian state while we're doing this live stream. All they have to do is say no more spare parts for your F-16s, no more F-35s, and it's over because Israel depends in its occupation depends entirely on its direct line to Washington. And Biden won't do that. And Tony Blinken won't do that because Tony Blinken comes from a long line of Israel lobbyists. You probably agree with that.

For the most part, I definitely do. I think you agree with the power that the American president has to pick up the phone and put a stop to this, what you've called quite properly is a massacre. Look, I would even go further than Max. I mean, we have all sorts of economic leverage we can use. There was a quote from an Israeli general last week who said there's no way we could be able or we would be able to conduct the present war without American military support. They need the weaponry that they're getting from us, as I referred to with regard to the 2,000 and 1,000-pound bombs, not to mention all sorts of other weaponry. So in terms of weaponry, in terms of economic leverage, we could easily put this war, bring this war to an end.

But to even take it a step further, if you go back over time, go back into the 1990s when we began to move towards a two-state solution, the United States had enormous leverage from mid-1990s up to the present to put pressure on Israel to accept a two-state solution. We simply didn't do that. do you think the Israelis can go on with this indiscriminate slaughter before there's some military reaction by other actors in the region to stop it? I don't know. I think that Hezbollah is tempted to do something, but the problem is that the Israelis have made it clear that they would destroy Beirut and destroy good parts of other parts of Lebanon as well if Hezbollah launched any of those 150,000 missiles and rockets that they have at Israel. So I think Hezbollah is very reluctant to get involved. I think Iran is not going to take any steps to start a war to support Hamas.

And I can't imagine any of the Arab countries doing that because the Arab governments in the region are not that sympathetic to Hamas and to the Palestinians more generally. In fact, if you look at most of the Arab countries, it's the populations that really are deeply enraged by what's happening to the Palestinians. It's not the ruling elites. And the ruling elites mainly worry about pressure from below. Here's President Putin yesterday with the President of Iran discussing not an invasion, but discussing the problems in Gaza and who caused them. I don't remember if there are subtitles or if I have to read them, but we'll make it

sure so that everybody can understand it. It's not very long. It's very important for us to exchange views on the situation in the region, especially regarding the situation in Palestine. The reasons that humanity is suffering are the unilateral decisions taken and the unfair global system and the result of this you can witness in Palestine and the Gaza territory. What is happening in Palestine and Gaza is of course genocide and a crime against humanity. So how does Putin take advantage of the Israeli Gaza problem, the slaughter in Gaza, the Arab animosity toward Israel's behavior? that the United States is principally responsible for this war because it never put any pressure on Israel to create a legitimate or viable Palestinian state. And then furthermore, once the war broke

out, the United States has done nothing to stop it, but it has supported fully Israel's murderous campaign. And of course, both of those charges against the United States are true. They resonate all over the global South, and they especially resonate in the Arab and Islamic world. And it provides a perfect opportunity for Putin to improve Russia's standing in the global South and in the Arab and Islamic world, and to damage our position in those arenas. And this is what you see happening. And we haven't heard much from President Xi recently. What, if anything, if anything, of course, a giveaway, I'm sure something's going on, Are the Chinese up to, the Chinese government, to take advantage of this conflagration in Gaza? President Biden's caught between the

rock and a hard place over it, even to take advantage of the apparent American defeat in Ukraine? Well, the Chinese have been, as you say, relatively quiet the past week. But before that, the Chinese were making hay out of this issue as well. The Chinese were making basically the same argument that the Russians are making. And my surmise would be that as we move forward here, both the Chinese and the Russians will continue to pound the United States for its misbehavior, both from a moral and a strategic point of view with regard to the Gaza war, and that will work to their advantage and it will work to our disadvantage. So we're going to see more of this. And the key factor here is how long this war is going to go on. And there's no evidence that it's about to end anytime soon, which means that the United States is going to get clobbered in terms of its international position in the weeks and months ahead. Do you see the United States making a phone call like Max

Blumenthal hypothesized about? No. I think that President Biden knows full well that if he were to take on Israel, that he would pay a huge price domestically. The lobby, the Israel lobby would go after him hammer and tong. So he may, you know, toughen up his rhetoric somewhat, but I find it hard to believe, I hope I'm wrong, but I find it hard to believe that he's going to put serious pressure on Israel. A few weeks ago, you told us you thought that war between the United States and China was inevitable. Do you still believe that? No, I've never said that I thought war was inevitable. I think intense security competition is inevitable. I don't think a war is inevitable. I think it's potentially a very dangerous situation that we face in East Asia. I mean, people tend to focus on Taiwan, but these

days I worry more about the South China Sea. The Chinese have been behaving quite aggressively in the South China Sea. And you could have a serious naval incident that dragged us into a fight with the Chinese. And who knows how that would escalate? Now, I'm not saying that's going to happen because, again, my argument is not that war is inevitable. But my argument is that this war is inevitable, but my argument is that this is a very dangerous situation. There's an intense security competition taking place, and it could spin out of control at any point. All right. I'm happy I misunderstood you,

but what is the intense security situation? What is happening in the South China Sea that would aggravate naval relations between the United States and China? Well, there's a serious dispute between the Philippines and the Chinese over a particular island or small island in that area. And the two navies have, you know, been bumping into each other and have been on the verge of conflict on more than one occasion in the recent past. And one can easily imagine a conflict breaking out and the United States coming in to support the Filipinos. I mean, the fact is that the United States and China have a deep-seated competition in place involving the

South China Sea. The Chinese believe that they basically own about nine-tenths of the South China Sea. And the South China Sea is international waters. And this situation lends itself to some kind of conflict breaking out down the road. And it doesn't have to involve us and the Chinese initially. It can involve one of our allies. And in this case, it's the Filipinos. But if you look carefully at what's happening in the South China Sea, it's a worrisome situation. Terrible state of affairs. Professor John Mearsheimer, thank you for the clarity and understanding you bring to these programs. Deeply appreciated by the viewers and certainly by me. You're welcome. Come back with us next Friday as well. Okay. Thank you.

All the best. Coming up at three o'clock Eastern, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, and at four o'clock Eastern by popular demand, of course, our intelligence roundtable with a different twist. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.