Judging Freedom - Prof. John Mearsheimer: Russia/China and the Middle East

Episode Date: September 5, 2024

Prof. John Mearsheimer: Russia/China and the Middle EastSee 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, September 5th, 2024. My dear friend, Professor John Mearsheimer joins us now. Professor Mearsheimer, always a pleasure, as you know. Thank you very much for your time and for letting me pick your brain. I really want to talk about big picture. And the big picture that I want to address with you is the potential involvement of Russia and maybe even China, or at least what their thinking is, should Prime Minister Netanyahu and his buddy Lindsey Graham succeed in persuading the American government to wage some kind of a war on Iran. But before we get there, some of the hot button issues that have happened since you and I were on air together late last week. The incursion into Kursk by the Ukrainian troops with the assistance of NATO.

President Putin says they're trapped. President Zelensky says, ah, we took 500 square miles and we're exchanging prisoners and we wouldn't have been able to make the exchange had we not captured some Russians during this incursion. Who's making more sense? Well, I think that it's quite clear that Putin is correct. The offensive that the Ukrainians launched into Kursk has stalled. And even before it stalled, the Ukrainians were taking a beating. They were on the offensive, they were out in the open, and the Russians were really pounding them. And at the same time, the Ukrainians were not killing many Russians, and taking all those square kilometers of territory is really meaningless. And I think most importantly, what they ended up

doing when they put the Kursk Offensive together is they took forces off of their eastern front, which is the most important front in this war, and they weakened themselves there so that the Russian offensive in eastern Ukraine, which is of central importance, is faring better now that the Kursk offensive has taken place. So this is a folly of the First Order, and it's working, of course, to the Russians' advantage. With respect to your alma mater, the Russians have attacked the Ukrainian version of West Point. They destroyed it with two ballistic missiles that killed over 100 people, cadets and instructors, some of whom were Swedes, some of whom were Poles, many of whom were Ukrainian instructors. What's your take on this?

It was a military academy, but in a residential, it wasn't like West Point where you went, it was in a residential area. Well, first of all, if you look at what the Russians are doing with their attacks from the air, with aircraft, with drones, and with ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, they are really slamming all sorts of targets in Ukraine on a daily basis. They, of course, have done enormous damage to the energy infrastructure, and they're going after important military sites and destroying them. And this is a case of that. As you know, this war revolves in good part around the electronic warfare capabilities of both sides. For example, both sides are deeply committed to trying to jam the other side's drones. And this is electronic warfare at its best. And this school that they attacked specialized in electronic warfare. And from the Russians' point of view, it made eminently good sense to target it and take out all of those individuals who would be, had they lived, key players in the electronic warfare competition between the two sides.

So I think, in effect, this was a devastating blow to Ukraine. Is President Putin losing his patience, or is this just part of his methodical, slow, inexorable march? I think it's the latter. I don't see any evidence that he's lost his patience. I mean, he is, if anything, remarkably patient. Just, you know, puts one step forward, one foot forward, then the other foot comes forward. Right. In the same week that President Zelensky, I'm not so sure how some American presidents would react to this, announced in public that he has asked President Biden for offensive weapons that would allow him to shoot deep into Russia. But anyway, the same week that he announced publicly that he asked President Biden for this, he fired his foreign minister and half of his cabinet.

What's your take on that, Professor Mearsheimer? Those are two separate issues. Let's talk first about the whole business of using American missiles to strike deep into Mother Russia. I mean, what's going on here, in my opinion, is that Zelensky is desperate. He has really no cards to play except to try to drag the Americans into the war and get the Americans fighting the Russians, in which case he'll be in reasonably good shape. The Russians versus the Ukrainians, it's quite clear the Russians are going to win. But if it's the Russians versus the Ukrainians plus NATO on the battlefield, it may be the case that the Russians even lose. So he is trying to drag the Americans in here. I don't believe that Zelensky thinks that those missiles

are going to affect events on the battlefield in the sense that they're going to destroy Russian targets and weaken Russians' military position along the front lines. That's not going to happen. We don't have enough missiles to give them. They won't do that much damage. What he wants to do is he wants to cross a Russian red line, get the Russians to overreact, and then that will drag the Americans in. And he believes that that will pull his chestnuts out of the fire. So that's what's going on here. The Americans, of course, are fully aware of this, and they're going to great lengths to make sure we don't end up in a war with Russia.

And that's why we are not giving him permission at this point to use those missiles to attack deep into Russia. Now, firing the cabinet at a moment like this, particularly as foreign minister. Well, my view is, who cares? Do you really think this is going to matter? Well, I'm wondering if it indicates what you just said, desperation. Well, I think it does indicate desperation. And I think that what he is doing here is trying to send a signal to his people, to the Ukrainian people, and to the West, especially the United States, that he still has cards to play, that he's in charge. He's not quitting. And everybody should understand that. Okay, you can do that.

But again, so what? The key issue is here is what is this going to do? What are these firings going to do, especially firing the foreign minister, to improve Ukraine's position in the war? The answer is it's going to have no effect. You remember when he fired Zeluzhny last year? Yes. It was earlier this year. I can't remember. He fired General Zeluzhny, and he replaced him with General Sierski. Did it make any difference? No. If he fired

General Sierski tomorrow and put me in charge, would it make any difference? No. Oh, it might make a difference if you were in charge. You would tell him to start negotiations. You want to know the truth? I would not be surprised if Sierski has already told him that. I'm not saying I have any evidence to support that, but I would not be surprised. Sierski has to understand that Ukraine is in

desperate straits, and if anything, the situation just gets worse with the passage of time. There's no hope here. I have a couple of oddball questions in that they're not really connected to each other. Were you surprised when President Erdogan revealed that Turkey has made an application to join BRICS, And can Turkey stay in BRICS and NATO at the same time? I was not surprised at all. I mean, the Turks in general and Erdogan in particular are furious about the fact that the European Union will not accept Turkey as a member. Turkey is a member of NATO. And in that sense, we talk about Turkey being part of the West. But the EU is unwilling to admit Turkey. And this irritates the Turks greatly.

And there are a number of other issues that irritate the Turks greatly when it comes to the West. So I'm not surprised that Erdogan is trying to have his cake and eat it too by remaining in NATO and therefore saying he has a firm foot in the West and at the same time joining BRICS and saying he's closely tied to both Putin and Xi Jinping. So somebody in Washington, D.C. dispatched 10 U.S. Marshals and 10 Department of Homeland Security agents to steal a jet plane in Santo Domingo that's owned by the government of Venezuela. What is to be accomplished by that? Nothing good, that's for sure. I mean, they didn't even go to a judge to get some sort of an order for it.

They just stole this thing, filled it with fuel. I don't know if they paid for the fuel and flew it to Miami. Yeah. Well, I mean, you know what's going on here. There's a left-wing government in Venezuela, and there has been for quite a while. And the United States does not tolerate left-wing governments in the Western Hemisphere. And we go to great lengths whenever they appear to overthrow them. We're heavily into regime change.

We want color revolutions in the Western Hemisphere. And effectively, that's what's driving this train. Early, well, yesterday afternoon, the Attorney General of the United States and the director of the FBI announced a series of indictments against a corporation through which they say the Russian government by circuitous routes was funneling money to American influencers who didn't know where the money was coming from. Not you and not me. Chris Wray, the director of the FBI, made a statement. I'd like your thoughts on it. But as we play this statement, my thought is whatever happened to the freedom of speech. But here's cut number 18.

Our investigation revealed that since at least last year, RT has used people living and working inside the U.S. to facilitate contracts with American media figures to create and disseminate Russian propaganda here. The content was pitched as legitimate independent news when, in fact, much of it was created in Russia by RT employees who worked for the Russian government. When is the FBI in the business of evaluating the content of people's speech? Well, it's a recent phenomenon when it comes to RT and all these Russian media outlets and what Americans are saying about the war in Ukraine and about Russia in general. And I think the situation is getting steadily worse. I'm not exactly sure why that's

the case. You get the sense from reading the newspaper that people inside the administration think the Russians are deeply involved in trying to influence the 2024 election. And this is all part of a scheme to make sure that doesn't happen. One could argue it's related to the Ukraine war and the fact that the Ukraine war is going really badly is a good reason to go after all sorts of people like us who have argued all along that NATO and the West are responsible for this war and that the Russians are going to win it. That is often portrayed, those views are often portrayed as pro-Russian views. People who make that argument are accused of being Putin's puppet. And one could argue that what's going on here is those people who make

those kinds of arguments, like you and like me, are now targets of the FBI and the government more generally. I'm not exactly sure what's going on, but those are my surmises. Prime Minister Netanyahu desperately wants the American government to be engaged with the Israeli defense forces in a war against Iran. Aside from his condemnation of the freedom of speech, his most memorable statement in the speech to the Congress two months ago was, Iran is your enemy. This is your war. This will be your victory. I think I have accurately quoted him. If I'm inaccurate, I'm quoting the essence of what he was saying.

Do you think he will succeed in persuading, cajoling, or scaring, along with his buddy Lindsey Graham, the American government into waging war, probably from the sea and the air, on Iran? I think there's only one circumstance where there's a possibility of that. And that circumstance is where it becomes clear that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. There's no question that Iran has enriched enough uranium that it's close to the point where it could build a bomb, but it hasn't taken that final step yet. I think that if Iran does take that final step, there is a reasonable chance, and I'm choosing my words carefully here, I think there's a reasonable chance that we would use our military, maybe in conjunction

with the Israelis, to strike the nuclear facilities inside of Iran. I think a lot of people know that that would be futile, that it may work in the short term, but over the long term, Iran would still develop nuclear weapons. And that line of argument would cut against doing it. But nevertheless, we have said that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. And we have clearly implied that if it goes, tries to cross the goal line and weaponize, that we will attack it. Whether we actually do it's another matter. But anyway, my point is that's the only circumstance I can see where we go to war in a serious way against Iran. Hasn't the UN the final say on who can have nuclear weapons?

No, no. Who does? The United States and its hegemonic aspirations? Yes. Did we ever give Israel approval for nuclear weapons? No. President Kennedy, to his credit, tried to prevent Israel from acquiring nuclear weapons. But he succeeded, of course, after he was assassinated by President Johnson. And President Johnson did not do much to stop the Israelis from

acquiring nuclear weapons. Tell me how rational or foolhardy the following is. Chris, cut number three. If you want the hostages home, which we all do, you have to increase the cost to Iran. Iran is the great Satan here. Hamas is the junior partner. They're barbaric religious Nazis, Hamas. They could care less about the Palestinian people. I would urge the Biden administration and Israel to hold Iran accountable for the fate of remaining hostages and put on the target list oil refineries in Iran if the hostages are not released. Do you foresee American fighter jets attacking Iran oil refineries because Hamas will not agree with Bibi Netanyahu's

continually upping and upping his demands of the negotiating table? No, I think that Graham's comments are absurd. I mean, first of all, the idea that Iran controls Hamas and that Iran can dictate to Hamas what it should or shouldn't do with the hostages. It's not a serious argument. And furthermore, even if it were true, the idea that you could then use the American military to slam Iran, and that would coerce the Iranians into dictating to the Hamas fighters that they have to give up the hostages, it's a laughable argument. It shows you where the level of discourse in the United States is today.

His view, right? We're even having a conversation about these Looney Tunes ideas that he has. You and I have discussed this on air and off at length. I think that his view, and he may not even be a fair representative of the view, is embraced by most of the Congress, don't you? I think there's a reasonably large slice of will mimic his views in public, knowing in private that those ideas make no sense at all. But the fact of the matter is, given the media landscape that we have today in the United States, it's very easy for people like Lindsey Graham to get out there and make these nonsensical arguments and for them to be seen by many people in the public as credible arguments because they're put up in bright lights by the media. But again, this just shows you how condamnated our discourse here in the United States is about all sorts of foreign policy issues. And this, by the way, is one of the principal reasons the United States is in so much trouble around the world. Here's more cockamamie arguments. You'll know who this is in an instant. I want to know if

the United States of America will continue to back the Netanyahu government unconditionally, no matter how irrational or deceptive the prime minister may be. Cut number 14. They said there'll never be a deal. Well, they started caving in there after we took the Philadelphia corridor. And then they started backing off. You know why they waited? Why they started backing off?

Because they waited for Iran they started backing off? Because they waited for Iran to start a general war with Israel. That didn't happen. So then they waited for Hezbollah to start a general war with Israel. That didn't happen either. So now they resort to the final tactic.

They're going to sow discord and create international pressure, again using the hostages, even after the murder. So take that kind of argument, add it to Iran is your enemy, the war with Iran is your war, the victory over Iran is your victory, which is what he told the Congress and for which he was applauded. Is there no limit on the American support for Israel, or is it totally unconditional no matter what that man says or does?

There's no limit. I mean, it should be manifestly clear to everybody at this point in time. I mean, as we talked about on the show the last time I was on, Tony Blinken is effectively Netanyahu's lawyer. Netanyahu can make all sorts of claims and use the rhetoric of Tony Blinken to defend himself because Blinken is basically in bed with Netanyahu. That's where we're at. You know, a lot of people were saying when Kamala Harris first became the obvious nominee for the presidency in the Democratic Party that there was hope that she would be different. This is not a serious argument. Kamala Harris is going to be hardly any different from Joe Biden, who was hardly any different from Donald Trump,

who was hardly any different from Barack Obama. We can go back further and further, right? The idea that any American president or any American policymaker of consequence is going to get tough with the Israelis is simply not in the cards. We don't even have policymakers or military leaders who will stand up and say that our relationship with Israel involves taking major steps that are not in the American national interest. And it's not because these policymakers and military leaders don't understand that. It's because they're afraid. And what they understand is if they want to get promoted or they want to remain in their

present jobs, they have to support Israel unconditionally. Here's a comment on all of this from the Palestinian envoy to the United Nations, cut number 17. From genocide to apartheid, Israel is showing the world its willingness and readiness to use speakable means to achieve its colonial aims. Disposition, displacement, devastation, destruction, death is what it has been inflicting on Palestinians for decades. But our people are enduring them today at a scale experienced since the Nakba. Instead of ending the Nakba, Israeli fascist extremist leaders have decided to try to bring it to an ultimate conclusion.

Palestine with no Palestinians. Antisemitic or truthful? It's not antisemitic at all. I mean, there's no question in my mind that what Netanyahu is trying to do in Gaza is ethnically cleanse that strip of land. He wants to drive all the Palestinians out. As I've said on numerous occasions, it's very important to understand that in greater Israel, which is the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Israel as it existed before 1967, those three pieces of territory comprise greater Israel. Inside greater Israel, there's rough

equality in terms of the number of Palestinians and the number of Israeli Jews. And this means that Israel has no choice but to run an apartheid state, which of course is what greater Israel is. But to put an end to that apartheid state, the Israelis understand that unless they go to a democratic greater Israel, which would not be a Jewish state for long, their only option is to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians, both in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip. And whenever you have a major war, the Israelis see an opportunity to ethnically cleanse. This is what happened in 1948 with the Nakba. It's what happened in 1967 when they cleansed the West Bank. Here's a major war, and unsurprisingly, Netanyahu sees an opportunity to cleanse Gaza. And that's what he's trying to do. And I believe

one of the two main reasons that he will not agree to a ceasefire, he likes to argue he's in favor of the ceasefire. He likes the Biden administration's deals. It's Hamas that's the major obstacle. We all know this is not true. Israel is the major obstacle. And why is it the major obstacle? Because he doesn't, Netanyahu doesn't want a ceasefire and any form of peace agreement, because that will prevent him from cleansing Gaza. So what he wants to do is to continue to make that piece of territory, the Gaza Strip, unlivable and ultimately force the Palestinians out. If Israel enters into a war with Iran and Lindsey Graham and those who agree with them get their wish, will Russia come to the aid of Iran? Well, it would have to be a major war for that to even be

a possibility. In other words, the United States would have to be fighting hammer and tongue against the Iranians for the Russians or the Chinese to come in. And as I said before, I think there's only one scenario where the Americans are likely to attack Iran, and that is if Iran goes down the nuclear road. And in that instance, we would not end up fighting a protracted war. It would involve one, two, maybe three strikes against the nuclear facilities in Iran. I think in that circumstance, the Russians are, and I'm choosing my words carefully here, extremely unlikely to come into the fighting. I don't think it would be necessary. I don't think it would make much difference. And I don't think Russia, given that it has its hands full in Ukraine, wants to get involved in a war with the United States over

Iran. So I don't think that's happening. And again, I don't think the United States is anxious at all to pick a fight with Iran, much less get involved in a major war with Iran. It's very important to understand that there's only one country in the Middle East that's interested in escalating these conflicts, and that's Israel. Israel wants to drag Iran and the United States into a war. Both Iran and the United States do not want to fight each other. Does China have an interest in the Middle East? China has a growing interest in the Middle East, and it has a growing capability to intervene in the Middle East? China has a growing interest in the Middle East, and it has a growing capability to intervene in the Middle East. It has a big interest in the Middle East because it gets a lot of its

oil from the Middle East. As you can imagine, a country as big as China with a thriving economy like it has needs lots of oil, and it gets lots of oil from the Persian Gulf. So unsurprisingly, the Chinese have gotten more and more involved in recent years in the Gulf. Furthermore, they're building a blue water navy, and they're building a blue water navy that will allow them to project military power into the Gulf. And they have been cozying up to both the Iranians and the Saudis. And they have been taking advantage of the fact that our relations with both the Iranians and the Saudis have been quite bad in recent years. They've been very bad with Iran and quite bad with Saudi Arabia. And the Chinese are taking advantage of that. But I would argue that at

this point in time, the Chinese are not major players in the Middle East. I think the Russians are much bigger players because they're so deeply involved in Syria and they have a long history of involvement in the region. But the Chinese don't have that long history, and they're just beginning to develop the military capability to project power into the area. What is a blue water navy? What does the term blue water mean? Out on the ocean. In other words, it's just not a coastal navy. You can imagine the Chinese developing a navy that was well-suited to protect the Chinese coast, you know, the area around Japan

and the South China Sea and so on. But a blue water navy is like the navy that we have. You can get out and sail on the high seas and you can project power over great distances. Is the Chinese navy equivalent to the American? No, not at all. The United States has the most powerful military forces in the world, I would argue by far. That doesn't mean that we would clobber the Chinese in a war over Taiwan, because you have to look at the context of any conflict to determine how well each side's military would do. But if you were just to take the quantity and quality of the weaponry and the troops in the Air Force, Navy, and Army of China, and compare them with the Air Force, Army, and Navy of the United States, I believe we have a clear advantage.

Now, I think it's important to emphasize that the Chinese are interested in closing that gap for good strategic reasons. But at this point, we have a superior military. And when it comes to dominating the high seas, this is where the Blue Water Navy comes in, there's no question that the United States is numero uno. At the present time. At the present time. At the present time. Great. Professor Mearsheimer, thank you, my dear friend. Great, great conversation. We were all across the board and you allowed me to cover all the topics I wanted to cover with you.

Thank you for your time and I hope you'll come back again next week. I look forward to it. Thank you. Thank you. Coming up at 4 o'clock Eastern, the always worth waiting for Max Blumenthal. Please remember to go to judgenap.com. You can become a subscriber. You can get behind, well, you know how to see what's there and there's a lot there. The cost is very insignificant. And please remember to subscribe if you haven't done so already. We're close to 440,000 subscriptions. Our goal is a half a million by Christmas. See you with Max Blumenthal at four o'clock. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thanks for watching!