Judging Freedom - Prof. John Mearsheimer: Russia Smashes NATO.

Episode Date: April 18, 2024

Prof. John Mearsheimer: Russia Smashes NATO.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, April 18th, 2024. Our dear friend, Professor John Mearsheimer joins us now. Professor Mearsheimer, thanks very much for your time here. You recently gave a talk in which you argued that Russia has smashed NATO. What did you mean? Well, I meant that if you look at what's happening on the battlefield and you look at the air war that the Russians are conducting against Ukraine, the Russians are winning the war. They're certainly smashing all sorts of Ukrainian installations from the air, and they're doing great damage to Ukrainian fighting forces. And because the United States and its European allies are joined at the hip with Ukraine. We're effectively in this war with

the Ukrainians. We're losing just like the Ukrainians are losing. What members of NATO are either physically there, I don't expect a complete list, especially if the amount of aid is insignificant, are either physically there, open and notoriously there, or open and notoriously have given aid? Is it most of NATO? Is it just the big ones in the West, Germany, France, Great Britain, and the U.S.? Well, in terms of giving aid, it's clear that almost every NATO country has given some aid, some more than others, for sure. The Americans and the Germans, for example, have given a lot. In terms of boots on the ground, there are no fighting forces that we know of that are there. But it's quite clear that all of the major powers have some forces there who are assisting the Ukrainians in waging the war. Now, this could be for training purposes,

it could be for intelligence purposes, but we don't have any big combat units there. The Russians say that the military that's overly represented in Ukraine is Polish, that there are a good number of Polish forces inside of Ukraine. I'm not certain that's the case, but it wouldn't surprise me at all. Have these Polish forces and CIA, MI6, I don't know what the intelligence people are called in Germany or France, suffered any casualties that their governments have not revealed? I mean, isn't it more likely than not that they have? Oh, yeah. And there's all sorts of evidence. If you sort of look at the Russian telegram channels, that there is widespread belief,

for example, that the Russians have killed a significant number of French soldiers at one point, that they've killed a Polish general at one point. So there's no question that some Western individuals have died, but how many and under what circumstances is hard to tell with any degree of certainty. Talk to us about the either contribution to NATO or contribution to their own defenses that European countries make. I have this vision or feeling that U.S. spends more over there than any of those individual countries do, and it almost makes them reliant on the U.S., and the U.S. probably likes that. Yeah, I agree with that 100%. The Europeans have, since the Cold War ended, not spent much money on defense, and American leaders have complained a lot about that. Barack Obama certainly complained about it, and then following in his footsteps, Donald Trump made a big issue of it.

My view has always been that the United States was actually not that bothered by the fact that the Europeans didn't spend much money for their own defense, because that kept them weak and dependent on us. And as long as they were dependent on us for security, we had a significant amount of political leverage over them. So we, I think, liked that situation. And I might add, this is one of the principal reasons that the United States would never let Russia into NATO, because the Russians would always have a big defense establishment, and the United States would not be able to push the Russians around the way it pushes everybody else around inside of NATO. So the Russians had no chance of getting into NATO for that reason alone. Very interesting observation. They always thought it was a very, very bold move when Putin requested that. You and I didn't know each other, but I wish we had, and I wish I could have, I didn't have the show then, but I wish I could have spoken to you about it at the time. What are the Europeans defending themselves from? And I don't mean that in a naive way. Did they buy the Joe Biden nonsense that Putin just wants to take country after country?

No, I don't think they do. Otherwise, they'd spend lots of money to defend themselves. I think it's probably the case that in Eastern Europe, the Baltic states and Poland fear the Russians greatly. But other than those countries, it's hard to see who else really fears the Russians. The Hungarians, who are right up next door to Ukraine, don't fear the Russians. I don't have the sense that the Romanians live in mortal fear of the Russians. And certainly, the further west you move, the less fear there is. And that's for good reason. There's no rationale for fearing the Russians. They're not going to try to conquer Eastern Europe, but much less Western Europe. Is this a reason for the shrinkage of the size of the British military or is it domestic politics and domestic economics? Yeah, I think it's domestic politics, but even more domestic economics. I mean, Britain is a country that's in really bad shape

and they just don't have the wherewithal to build really formidable defenses. I mean, one of the problems that we face today is that to build sophisticated weaponry involves enormous sums of money. You see this when people talk about missile defense, you know, the Israelis or the Ukrainians trying to shoot down incoming missiles. To me, you know, an appropriate air defense capability costs a lot of money, and the British just don't have that kind of money. How close is Ukraine to total collapse? It's hard to say for certain, but you can make a good argument that at some point, you know, in the next few months, the Ukrainian army

will unravel. And then we will really be in desperate straits. It's hard to say, in large part because Ukrainian nationalism is such a powerful force. One really has to admire the tenacity of the Ukrainians who are willing to fight against the Russians. They are willing to pay an enormous cost, and they just continue to hang in there. But every army has its limits, and exactly where those limits are is hard to tell. But it is, you know, it is possible, given the pounding that the Ukrainians are taking, the fact that they're so short on weaponry, and it's so hard to get new troops that can replace the beleaguered forces on the front line that it may be the case that this army just shatters. We have heard reports from Colonel McGregor and others of group surrenders.

I don't want to say mass, but platoon or battalion surrenders, 50, 60, 100 troops at a time. We even heard reports that some of their fiercest fighters, the so-called Nazi groups, have surrendered. Have you heard that? Do your sources reveal that to you? Yes. And you also hear stories that some of their fiercest fighters are just refusing to fight under certain circumstances. They just don't want to die. How large these protests or whatever are is hard to tell, and where they all lead is hard to tell. But one harbinger of trouble ahead is that the Ukrainian parliament finally passed a mobilization bill. And one of the key aspects of this mobilization bill is that soldiers cannot get out of the army. It was believed for a long time that when the mobilization

bill went through, it would state that after 36 months of service, soldiers could get out of the army and that somebody would replace them. But that's not the case. And it is almost universally agreed inside of Ukraine that this has caused a lot of dissatisfaction, a great deal of dissatisfaction in the ranks of the Ukrainian army. So one could say that when you look at what the Russians are doing to the Ukrainian military, and then you add in this new mobilization bill, this will just create greater pressure on the Ukrainian military and may lead to its cracking. Here's President Zelensky just two days ago. I don't think this is realistic, but it's interesting that he's saying this. Cut number seven, Chris. Today, our artillery shell ratio is one to ten. Can we hold our ground? No. In any case, with these statistics, they'll be pushing us back every day to To defend 100% of what's in our control, we would need to go from

one to comparing numbers. The plan is very simple. It's very clear. It exists. There is a specific weapon that we need to advance. There's a specific weapon to defend the skies. This plan exists. Besides, all the partners have it in their hands. This is the plan for what we really need. Any idea what he's talking about, Professor? Well, he has a wish list, and I think that wish list is what he means when he talks about a plan. But the question you have to ask yourself, is it realizable? Is he going to get anywhere near the number of F-16 or artillery tubes that he's wishing for? And the answer is no, because we just don't have them. The idea that F-16s are going to come in and shift the balance was a delusion that was getting a lot

of play in the press for a while, but now everybody understands it is a delusion and it doesn't get as much attention as it did in the past. And with regard to artillery tubes, it may be the case that over the next few months, they reduced the ratio from 10 to 1 to 9 to 1 or 8 to 1, but it only doesn't matter at all. The Russians have a decisive advantage in terms of weaponry and manpower. And what they're doing here is they're wearing down the Ukrainian military. They're doing it with all the firepower they have on the ground, the advantage they have in manpower, and now with the air power that they have, with all these smart bombs that they're using to pound the Ukrainians. It's just hard to see how the Ukrainians can hold out for much longer

in this war of attrition. You predicted on this show not too long ago that Israel would replace Ukraine as the apple of the eye of the American elites and foreign policy establishment, and Zelensky would be jealous. Here he is saying point blank, well, what's going on here? Israel's not a NATO country. Cut number eight. Israel was not defending by itself. There was the protection of allies. If not for that protection, today we would have bloodshed and much more death. You know, when someone says that our allies cannot provide us with this or that weapon, or they cannot be in Ukraine with this or that force,

because that would be perceived as if Ukraine is engaging NATO in the war, well, after yesterday's attack, I want to ask you a question. Is Israel part of NATO or not? Here is the answer. Israel is not a NATO country. The NATO allies, including NATO countries, have been defending Israel. They showed the Iranian forces that Israel was not alone. And this is a lesson. This is a response to anyone on any continent who says you need to assist Ukraine very carefully so you don't engage NATO countries in the war. To whom is this desperate pitch made? The Republicans in the House of Representatives in the sense that we're willing to actually fight for

Ukraine. And we are actually fighting for Israel. This is what happened on April 14th. We played a key role militarily in stopping the Iranian attack against Israel. And this bothers him greatly, but he doesn't understand two things. One is, he says that Israel is not a NATO ally, but the point is Israel has a relationship with the United States that goes far beyond being a NATO ally or a normal ally. I guess he hasn't read your book. I think that we should send him a copy, although I don't think it's translated into Ukrainian or Russian, but he should read the book. I mean, Israel is in a case, is in a category all by itself. But the second thing is, if we go to the defense of Ukraine, we end up in a war with Russia. If we go to the defense of Israel, we don't end up in a war with Russia. If we go to the defense of Israel, we don't end up in a war with

Russia. Maybe we end up in some sort of conflict with Iran, but that's acceptable to the United States. A war with Russia is just not acceptable. In a piece that appeared under his name in this morning's Wall Street Journal, President Biden revealed, I think in print for the first time, and I'm sure intentional and for political purposes, how the $61 billion that he's looking for is, and I'll ask you about it, free up military gear and ammunition that's on the shelf, and then it'll be used to manufacture new stuff, and he lists all the cities in which the manufacturing will take place. Oh, and vote for me because I'm keeping your jobs, and you'll be making overtime and all that kind of nonsense. But what good will actually come from the Ukrainian perspective if the House of

Representatives votes to approve what the Senate sent over? I'm not talking about Taiwan and Israel and whatever else is in there. I'm just talking about, for now, the $61 billion for Ukraine. It will make very little difference. And the reason is that we do not have the weaponry to give them. I mean, what President Biden and many of the people in the war party like to argue is that the weaponry is on the shelf and all we need to do is get this legislation through Congress and then we can take that weaponry off the shelf and give it to the Ukrainians. That's simply not the case. We don't have much weaponry to give the Ukrainians. And as

President Zelensky made clear before, they need lots and lots of weaponry, which we don't have to give them. Does the Congress even understand that, well, who knows what they understand, that by ratifying this piece that came over from the Senate, it's not going to release equipment because the equipment doesn't exist? In other words, is it just a Pyrrhic victory? Is it just a victory for Joe Biden politically, but will make not a meaningful impression, as you say, on the battlefield? Well, there are a lot of Republicans, not all of them by any means, but a lot of Republicans and almost all Democrats who live in a fool's paradise when it comes to the whole issue of Ukraine, and they have for a long time. And they do believe, I think honestly, that if we

free up this money, that it will go a long way towards stabilizing the situation on the front. And then over time, we can shift the balance in the Ukrainians' favor, and the Ukrainians can get back that territory, or at the very least, hold on to what they now have. I've long argued that this is delusional, but you can't seem to get through with that argument to almost all Democrats and a huge slug of Republicans. Here's a Republican who agrees with you. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky was on the show earlier today. He's really very, very unhappy with Speaker Johnson. A few weeks ago, he predicted that the Speaker would stand firm and not even allow a vote to come to the floor of the House on Ukraine. But this morning, he says the Speaker is going to cave. And of course,

he compares the Speaker to his rival from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, and to the very much disliked amongst Republicans, Joe Biden. But here's cut number 10. But we now have Speaker Johnson disappointing me to my very core. I mean, he started out at least saying that foreign aid should be paid for, and that would be a big step forward. And he's backing away from that. Now he's talking about passing all of the foreign aid unpaid for. And it really doesn't seem to be much difference between his position and Joe Biden's or his positions and Mitch McConnell's. I think that, and he acknowledges, is a minority view amongst Republicans. If this thing comes to the floor, you know, there are libertarians, progressives, some conservatives will vote against it, but the vast majority in both houses are going to vote in favor of it. He's furious that it's

all borrowing. That's why he said it's not paid for. It's not coming out of treasury funds. It's money that has to be borrowed, which God knows if it'll ever be paid back. I'd like to transition, Professor Mearsheimer. Did the Iranian military succeed in sending the message it intended to send on Saturday night with the 300 and some odd projectiles it sent into Israel? No question about that. I think what happened on Saturday night and what happened on October 7th, when you put those two things together, Israeli deterrence has suffered enormous damage. You want to remember that what lies at the core of Israel's deterrence strategy is escalation dominance. The Israelis operate on the principle that if anybody hits them, they have to be retaliate. They have to be able to retaliate and do greater damage to their adversary than their adversary

does to them. Obviously, this is what escalation dominance is. They want the world to fear them. Isn't that correct? Absolutely. Absolutely. And that's what escalation dominance is all about. The argument is, as you go up the escalation ladder, the Israelis will beat you on every rung. And therefore, you will come to the conclusion very quickly that you don't want to escalate. They can escalate because they'll win, but you don't want to escalate. But what's happened here is that the Israelis attacked the Iranian embassy in Damascus on April 1st, not expecting the Iranians to retaliate. And the Iranians retaliated, and they retaliated

in a significant way. And it's not clear that the Israelis have an option to retaliate that will cause the Iranians to back down. In fact, the Iranians have said very clearly they publicly committed themselves to retaliating if Israel strikes back at Iran. And of course, the Americans and their European allies are going to great lengths to convince the Israelis not to retaliate. So if the Israelis don't retaliate or they have a minor retaliation, they're going to end up looking weak. You want to remember here that this is the first time that a country like Iran has been able to strike the Israeli homeland from its own territory. This is really shocking from an Israeli point of view, and you would expect the Israelis to turn the dogs loose on Iran, to really retaliate, make them

suffer a great deal of punishment for what they did. But that's not the direction that Israel is headed in. And if it is the direction that Israel is headed in, if I'm wrong and they retaliate in a really forceful way, the Iranians will retaliate again. And then the question is, what are the Israelis going to do then? And the answer is, they don't have escalation dominance. Here's, I think this is goofy, but please share your view with us. This is Lord David Cameron, the former British Prime Minister and now Minister of Defense on a talk show on Sunday, mouthing the Western line that the Iranians over-retaliated and they did no damage because we shot everything down. What about Iran's frustration at part of its sovereign territory being flattened?

Well, I would argue there is a massive degree of difference between what Israel did in Damascus. And as I said, 301 weapons being launched by the state of Iran at the state of Israel for the first time, a state on state attack, 101 ballistic missiles, 36 cruise missiles, 185 drones. That is a degree of difference. And I think a reckless and dangerous thing for Iran to have done. And I think the whole world can see all these countries that have somehow wondered, well, you know, what is the true nature of Iran? It's there in black and white. Does he know what he's talking about, Professor Mearsheimer?

Well, he's making the Israeli slash Western case that it's the Iranians who initiated this conflict. And of course, it's the Israelis who initiated the conflict on April 1st when they attacked the Iranian embassy in Damascus. And what the Iranians were doing was retaliating. It's very clear to understand that neither the Iranians nor the Americans wanted this conflict that we now have between Iran and Israel. And both the Iranians and the Americans went to great lengths to prevent the conflict between these two countries from breaking out. But the Israelis attacked the embassy on April 1st, thinking that the Iranians would not retaliate. It's clear now that the Israelis goofed. They made a huge miscalculation. They thought that Iran would not do anything. But the Iranians said, enough is enough.

You attacked our embassy in Damascus. You crossed the red line. And they retaliated. And you also want to understand, this is very important to understand, that the Iranians went to great lengths to communicate to the Americans that this would be a limited attack. And they did not want to get into an escalatory spiral with the Israelis, and they certainly didn't want the Americans to come into the war. So the Iranians were actually quite judicious in how they went about launching this offensive. And as I said before, it's very important to understand that they have left the Israelis in a position where they have no good option to retaliate.

Here's the British interviewer's follow-up question to Lord Cameron. Let's just say his answer wasn't as well-prepared or self-confident as the answer to the previous question. What would Britain do if a hostile nation flattened one of our consulates? Well, we would take the very strong action. And Iran would say that that's what they did? Well what they did, as I said, was a massive attack. So they were right to respond but they overreacted, is that what you're saying? What I'm saying is that the attack they carried out was on a very large scale, much bigger than people accepted. Do they have a right to respond?

Well, countries have a right to respond. Of course countries have a right to respond, particularly to an unprovoked attack on civilians on a diplomatic mission protected by treaties and international law. Yeah, exactly. But also you want to remember how many Israelis died in this massive Iranian attack? None. That's right. None. None. Did the Iranians go to great lengths to communicate to the Americans that it would be a limited attack? Yes. Did they basically signal to us when the attack started? And of course, that attack would take a long time to manifest itself because the Iranian forces had to come a great distance.

Didn't that give us and the Israelis time to prepare? The answer is yes. According to Scott Ritter and Colonel Doug McGregor, one of the targets in Israel which was hit is the most well-protected, fortified target the Israelis have. I'm not exactly sure what it is, whether it's defensive or offensive weaponry. But I would imagine, and you may have said this earlier, that Prime Minister Netanyahu and his war cabinet were stunned at what the Iranians succeeded in doing. Well, I think they were stunned not so much by the nitty-gritty military consequences. There may have been some of that. I can't tell that for sure. But I think they were stunned that the

Iranians responded to the attack on the embassy by launching a large-scale attack against the Israeli homeland. Again, if you believe in escalation dominance, and the Israelis believe in escalation dominance to their core, it's absolutely essential in their minds for Israeli deterrence. You have a situation here where it failed massively. The Israelis are really in trouble. And by the way, if you look at what's happening with Hamas and what's happening with Hezbollah, you just find more evidence that escalation dominance is not working. Wow. I was really taken aback by the deceptions. You and I texted about this earlier today, the deceptions in President Biden's piece in the Wall Street Journal. How do you overcome governmental deceit when you have a gullible

public? It's very difficult. What you need is a marketplace of ideas. You need a situation where you have a mainstream media that allows dissenters or critics to express their views and to challenge the arguments of people like President Biden. And we don't have that in the United States. There is in the mainstream media an almost universal consensus on both the Ukraine war and the Gaza war. And therefore, when President Biden says what he said in that editorial today or that op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, you're going to find very few people who have a platform in the mainstream media who can challenge him on the points that he makes. I want to play one more clip for you, because it does involve the interaction between the Israeli plan to attack Rafah,

if there is one, and the Israeli plan to retaliate against the Iranians, if there is one. This is an AP reporter named Matt Lee. This guy asks tenacious questions of these poor hapless spokespersons for the State Department, but the State Department spokesperson's name is Vedant Patel, and the AP reporter is Matt Lee, and it's a little amusing, but it's also very informative. Here's the back and forth between them earlier today. Can you clear up either to kill or keep alive these persistent reports that you guys have told the Israelis that you're okay with them going ahead with the Rafah operation as long as they don't attack Iran?

MR HOOKSMANN So we've been pretty clear, Matt, that any kind of operation into Rafah requires some pretty serious planning because of the three main components that you've heard me, Matt, the Secretary, outline pretty seriously before. SECRETARY POMPEO Okay. That's an excellent answer to a question that I don't think I asked. I asked you whether or not the U.S. has told the Israelis that you're okay with a Rafah operation as long as they limit or don't attack Iran in response to what happened over the weekend. So Matt, I don't want to, the devil is in the details here. It would require what kind of operation into Rafah we're talking about.

All right. So regardless of whether Israel does anything with, in response to the Iranian attack over the weekend, you still would oppose a Rafah operation unless what you've just mentioned are. So why can't you just say no, that it is not true that you have. It's not true. It's not true. But I'm speaking. Why couldn't you have just said that in the beginning instead of going on? Because you're. I thought the question was pretty clear.

It wasn't that clear. I'm trying to be specific. They are just professional obfuscators. Do you know if the United States has imposed some sort of a connection between, we'll look the other way if you slaughter innocents in Rafah, as long as you don't slaughter innocents in Tehran? Well, I read the story, that story in Haaretz this morning, and who knows for sure whether it's true, but it certainly makes sense. The Americans are desperate to avoid a war with Iran, and what we really want is for the Israelis not to attack Iran directly, and if they do attack Iran directly or even indirectly, we want the attack to be as limited as possible. So I wouldn't be surprised if the quid pro quo from the Israelis is that you have to give us the green light with regard to Rafah.

And we say, yes, we'll give you the green light, but you have to do it in a humane way. And the Israelis say, of course, we would do it in a humane way. And the Israelis say, of course we would do it in a humane way. Everything we've done in Gaza since October 7th has been pursued in a humane way. And then we're off to the races. I would think off to the races would bring great, great condemnation on Israel after forcing a million and a quarter million and a half people into Rafah. What are they going to do, go in there and slaughter them? Well, if they go into Rafah and they don't evacuate most of the civilians, they will end up killing huge numbers of civilians. But that will be consistent with what they have done up to this point. I think the Israelis will not have any great difficulty killing civilians in Rafah. And in

fact, I've long believed that their ultimate aim here is to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza. That's their aim. And if they go into Rafah, I think they'd be perfectly content to do a huge amount of damage to the civilian population just for the purposes of hopefully getting them to flee. Professor Mearsheimer, thank you very much. Thanks for your time and as always for your analysis. Much appreciated. I hope we can see you again next week. My pleasure, and I hope so too. Thank you. Coming up at four o'clock Eastern on these same subjects, but in his own inimitable way, Max Blumenthal, Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.