Judging Freedom - Prof. John Mearsheimer: "Russophobic " - Buzzword for MSM

Episode Date: December 11, 2024

Prof. John Mearsheimer: "Russophobic " - Buzzword for MSMSee 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 Wednesday, December 11, 2024. Professor John Mearsheimer joins us now. Professor Mearsheimer, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for spending time with us. Professor Mearsheimer, what role did the United States play in the overthrow of the Assad regime in Syria? I think there's no doubt that the United States played a key role. In terms of the deep causes, I think that American sanctions, American control of those important oil fields in eastern Syria, those things really hollowed out the Syrian army and made it easy pickings for the rebels over the past two weeks. And then in terms of arming and training and supporting the rebels that overtook the country, it's hard to say what exactly we did compared to what the

Turks and the Israelis did. But there's no question we played a key role there as well. So I think there's no doubt that in the final analysis, the United States was a key player, if not the key player in bringing down Assad. Why would the United States want to side with this head of these militias by the name of al-Jalani, on whose head the State Department has a bounty of $10 million, whose organization has been formally denominated by the State Department as a terrorist organization, which means that under federal law, all material aid to this group is a felony. Why would the CIA want to aid this group, knowing, I guess, of course, that they're not going to be prosecuted, even though you or I would if we gave them any assistance?

I think they were deeply committed. The different groups inside of the administration, like the CIA and, of course, the White House itself, they were all deeply committed to getting rid of Assad, and they were willing to do almost anything to achieve that goal. To be honest, I don't understand why they were so committed to getting rid of Assad when it wasn't clear who would replace him and what the consequences would be of getting rid of him. It seems to me that this is all up in the air now. You're going to have chaos in Syria. And I don't see how this works to our advantage or to Turkey's advantage and even to Israel's advantage. And it's very important to emphasize here that in the American case, Israel was driving the train. We have no

real deep interest in what's going on in Syria, except for the fact that the Israelis care greatly and because they care greatly, we care greatly. But even there, I just don't understand what people were thinking the endgame would look like once we got rid of Assad. public, but how can they justify giving American tax dollars or money borrowed in the taxpayers' names to an organization that cuts people's heads and hands off? Well, you can't justify it legally or morally. And what the CIA tries to do is keep this hidden and not advertise what's going on. The problem is that with platforms like this and all sorts of other platforms, it's hard to keep these things secret these days. So it looks like we are guilty of hypocrisy in the extreme, which of course we are. But this kind of thing happens a lot in international politics.

You want to remember after World War II, when we switched sides, moving to make the Soviets adversaries and the Germans allies, we jumped into bed with all sorts of Nazis. We thought that they could provide important services to us because they knew the Soviet Union. They knew the Red Army so well. So we were willing to do all sorts of things to cooperate with former Nazis because we thought it would help us difficult time justifying it to the public, just like it would have a difficult time now explaining why there are people in federal prison because they were caught in FBI stings where they thought they were going to provide material assistance to a terrorist organization, whereas there are employees of the federal government,

Central Intelligence Agency officers, who do actually provide material assistance to terrorist organizations, and they're free to ply their nefarious trade again and again and again. Look, I think at a very general level, it used to be the case in the old days that the intelligence agencies could get away with all sorts of things, and we didn't find out about this for decades. Just think about the Israeli case. The Israelis could get away with a great deal before the coming of alternative media, before the coming of the internet, before the coming of Twitter. In this day and age, it's almost impossible for the Israelis to do anything surreptitiously. It's rapidly pushed out into the open. And the same thing is true with a lot of the shenanigans that the CIA

engages in. In the modern world, it's just very hard to operate in the back rooms or to operate in the dark the way we once did. Is the IDF at Netanyahu's command seizing land that two weeks ago, or even a week ago, was part of Syria? Yeah, there's no question about that. They're not only seizing land, they're also destroying Syrian military assets, and that includes naval assets, air assets, and ground assets. They want to leave the new Syrian government with as few military assets as possible. And I'm not sure the Israelis are doing the right thing here. If I were playing their hand, I'd think long and hard about trying to work out some sort of modus vivendi with the rebels who have taken over. And I wouldn't go out of my way to destroy their military capability or to seize land

and antagonize these jihadis who are going to be in charge. I mean, these jihadis are hardly Zionists. Most of them would not allow themselves to be photographed in the presence of a member of the Jewish people. That's how much hatred they have for Israel and for the Jews. No, there's no question that they're not jihadi. I mean, that they're not Zionists. There's no doubt about that. But Israel can work out some sort of modus vivendi with them because they will understand whether Israel destroys their military capabilities now or not, that down the road, the Israelis can destroy go to great lengths at this point in time to try to work out some sort of arrangement with the jihadis and not take territory in southern Syria, and also not to destroy all of the jihadis' military capability. That may sound odd, but that's how I'd think about it if

I were playing their hand at this point in time. The only thing the Israelis need is another conflict. To get bogged down in southern Syria and have to deal with jihadis attacking them because jihadis are enraged at Israeli behavior is not what the Israelis need at this point in time, in my opinion. How do you explain the odd alliance of Israel and Turkey? Well, they had different motives, right? The Turks wanted to get rid of Assad in large part because of the Kurdish problem. They want to be able to deal with the Kurds in northern Syria. And they also have territorial interests in northern Syria. This is this neo-Ottomanism that you see evidence of in Ankara, especially with the Erdogan government. So the Turks had that set of interests. The Israelis wanted to get rid of Assad for two reasons. One is they wanted to deliver a hammer

blow to Iran, and they felt that toppling Assad would be a hammer blow to Iran, which it is. And furthermore, it's very important to understand, I think this is the key, that Iran was funneling weaponry to Hezbollah through southern Syria. And once you knock off Assad and once that conduit between Iran and Hezbollah is cut off, it has an effect, at least in the short term, on Hezbollah's military capabilities. I want to play for you a clip of President Assad. This is back in 2017. He has a very interesting take on the presidency of Donald Trump, which was in its incipient stages in 2017, and on the nature of the American presidency and the nature of, here's the John

Mearsheimer category, American hegemony. Chris, number 13. The problem in the United States is about the whole political system It's not about one person Trump's election has proven again for us Again and again That the president is only a performer He's not the decision maker He's part of different lobbies And the deep states or the deep regime as we can call it

Who implement and dictate on the president What should he be doing أو النظام الداخلي كما يسمى الذي يدفع ويقوم بإدخاله على الرئيس ما الذي يجب أن يفعله ومثابة ما أقوله أنه بعد أن تصبح رئيساً تتبع أكثر من الأعداء والعالم الذي كان يتحسنه في حالة محاولته فعل 180 تحرك في أقل أعداء لماذا؟ He made 180 turns in nearly every promise.

So why? Because the deep state wouldn't allow him to go in certain direction. That's why for me, dealing with him as a person, it could be. But can that person deliver? No. In the United States, president cannot deliver. The whole state, the deep state only, is the one who can deliver. And this is the problem This deep state doesn't accept partners around the world

They only accept puppets They only accept followers They only accept proxies That's what they accept We're not any of these Do you agree with what he said at the end? Professor Mearsheimer, the deep state doesn't accept partners They only accept

puppets, followers, and proxies. Well, I think there's no question that the United States wants partners who are, in effect, states that will do what the United States wants and will not challenge the United States. I think he's basically right. What we've tried to do since the Cold War ended is remake the world in our image. We want a world that's filled with states that look like the United States and dance to our tune. So I think he's correct in that sense. I also think he's correct in his description of how Donald Trump fared during his first administration. And if my memory is correct, you said that interview was from 2017, which was Trump's first administration. And I think what Assad says is true. Now, the question is, will that change this time around?

Trump is well aware that he was thwarted in his first time in the White House, and he and his advisors are determined to turn things around and to create a situation where he can have an independent effect on American foreign policy, that he can beat the deep state. And as I've said on the show before, I don't think he's going to succeed. And when I look at his appointments, I see lots of reason to think that I'll be proved right. Well, you see neocons or neocons, if I can use the phrase, in MAGA clothing. I mean, what's has a D after its name and the other team has an R after its name, but they basically want to pursue the same goals by the same means. Am I being overly simplistic? No, I think you're on the money. And I think the only interesting question is whether Trump has his own agenda independent of those

individuals and he can come in and coerce them to follow in his footsteps and not to resist the policies that he wants to push forward. And even if they do it one time or maybe two times, I don't think they can do it more than that. I think there are limits to how much Trump can coerce his lieutenants into following his policies and certainly coerce the deep state into following his policies. One thing at the end, Trump's not going to make that much difference. How do you explain, Professor Mearsheimer, what appears to be the Kremlin's indifference to the fall of President Assad, a person that Donald Trump has referred to as their lackey and the Kremlin as Assad's patron? First of all, I think it's important to emphasize that the Russians did want to prop up

Assad. They did not abandon him because they were unwilling to help him. They concluded that they were unable to help him, that the Syrian army had been so thoroughly hollowed out that it just didn't stand a chance of prevailing on the battlefield and therefore it was a hopeless cause. So they were unable to help them, not unwilling. Now, what about the whole issue of how important those naval bases are, those Russian naval bases in Syria, and how important is it for the Russians to be in Syria? The answer is not all that important. I think in a perfect world, the Russians would like to have a lot of influence in Syria, and they want to have influence in the Middle East. But in the final analysis, it's not that

important. The Middle East at this point in time is something of a sideshow. The Russians are up to their eyeballs in alligators in Ukraine and in Europe more generally. And they don't want to get diverted from that war by focusing on the Middle East. Is Trump's statement that Assad was abandoned by his patron Putin, I'm paraphrasing the Trumpian language essentially correct? No, because it assumes that the Russians were able to help out the Syrians, but they cut and ran because they're a bunch of wussies. And that's not the case. The Wagner forces were involved in the fighting early on. The Russian Air Force, as all the news reports said, was involved in bombing the rebels.

The Russians wanted to help, but they quickly concluded it was just nothing they could do. The Syrian army was a paper tiger, and the rebels were a quite formidable fighting force. I would also add, and I think this is very important, if Donald Trump is interested in working with the Russians to shut down the war in Ukraine, sticking his finger in Putin's eye over what is happening in Syria is a foolish policy. Here's an interesting statement released earlier today by Maria Zakharova, who speaks perfect English and is the Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman. I'd like your thoughts on it. Chris, cut number 14. Seeing the confrontation in the Russian-American relations because of the official Washington,

they are on the verge of breaking. The trips, private and business trips to U.S. are fraught with serious risks. There is a literal hunt by the American law enforcement and intelligence service for our citizens. And there is a fraud scheme of luring out Russian citizens abroad. So how is it happening? They send invitations with some beneficial commercial or tourist offers.

After that, the people that were targeted are detained and then they're extradited After that, the people that were targeted are detained, and then they're extradited to the American jurisdiction according to the extradition agreements. And there is a full list of countries that cooperate with the U.S. regarding the extradition. It will be on our website. That is why we urge during the celebrations and in the future to refrain from any trips to the US or any allied satellite states, first of all Canada,

and countries of the EU, with some exceptions, if there is, if it isn't an emergency, of course. Does this portray an accurate relationship or what the Kremlin wants us to think is an accurate relationship between the United States and Russia today? That Russian citizens shouldn't come here for fear they'd be hunted down by American law enforcement, and Russian business persons should think twice before coming to the U.S., even for commercial reasons? That's clearly how the Russians are thinking. And you want to remember, you were thinking about going to Russia at one point and didn't get on an airplane. I've been invited to Russia a couple times to have meetings with very high-level people in Russia, and I would not get on an airplane and go there. So that gives you a good sense of sort of where we're at.

And I think the situation is likely to get worse with time. If you believe, as you and I do, that we're going to lose the Ukraine war and it's going to be a devastating blow to NATO and to the United States, to our reputation. You want to ask yourself what you think U.S.-Russian relations will look like moving forward. And I've watched the United States carefully over a long period of time. And when the United States gets into these kinds of situations, it doesn't roll over and play dead. It actually lashes out. It ups the ante. And I think that what we will do in the years ahead is up the ante versus the Russians and do everything we can to undermine them in Ukraine and in Eastern Europe more generally. And the end result of that is poisonous relations for as far as the eye can see. Can President-elect Trump end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours,

as he said he would over and over and over and over again during the campaign and even after his election? No, he can't. He can't even tell a plausible story how he could do that. I mean, Putin doesn't trust him as far as he can throw him to start with. Furthermore, he's not going to accept Putin's terms, and the Ukrainians are not going to accept those terms. So even if Trump comes in the White House and proves me wrong, and he accepts that there will be no Ukraine and NATO, and he accepts the fact that Russia has annexed these four Oblast plus Crimea, the Ukrainians won't accept that. And Trump has to work with the Ukrainians. They both have to be on the same page to cut some sort of deal with the Russians. And that's not

going to happen. Do the Europeans have a Mearsheimer understanding of realism, or do they still think that somehow the EU, NATO, and the West, however you want to name it, with the U.S. footing the bill, can win this war and repel Russia from the four oblasts and Crimea? Well, I think that there are some leaders who would agree with me, agree with you, and this is people like Viktor Orban, Viktor Tyko in Slovakia. What about Prime Minister Starmer and President Macron? I don't believe that they have their feet firmly planted on the ground and have a good sense of what's going on here. And I believe they think that we can stymie the situation on the battlefield and then eventually over time turn things around.

I think that's the hope that they hold out. They're not willing to quit now. They want to hang in there. They think that if we persevere, we can create a stalemate, and then eventually we can turn it around. Let me move to another part of the world in which you have a great interest, which is the Far East. Do you accept the theory articulated by Colonel McGregor on this program earlier today that the CIA was behind the declaration by the President of South Korea of martial law because the CIA fears that his adversaries, a very, very liberal political group, would come into power and ask the U.S. to get its 28 or 30,000 troops out of the country. My surmise is based on limited information, but my sense from reading lots of newspaper reports on this and talking to a handful of people who know the Korean situation

quite well is that the CIA did not instigate this, that it was the president who instigated it. And he did it because he was in deep political trouble and he saw declaring martial law as a way of rescuing the situation. And I think the CIA might have known about it. It's hard to say for sure, but I would imagine if the CIA knew about it, if the people in that organization who were on the South Korean desk have triple digit IQs, they would have told the president this was not a good idea. It was effectively shooting himself in the foot. And that, of course, is what turned out. So my guess would be the CIA probably knew something about it, maybe knew something about it, but did not instigate it. What do you think your friends in Beijing thought about all this? I'm not sure that they cared much either way. I mean, I think that in Beijing, what they really want is stability on

the Korean Peninsula. Many people may find this hard to believe, but leaders in Beijing, policy elites in Beijing, worry about North Korea. They look at North Korea not altogether unlike the way we look at North Korea as a country that is something of a loose cannon. And the last thing the Chinese want is a war on the Korean peninsula, because they understand they will get pulled in on North Korea's side, and we, of course, are already there on South Korea's side. So I don't think that the Chinese care very much, other than they just want stability on the Korean Peninsula. Thank you for permitting me this sojourn away from Ukraine and away from Israel and Syria. One last question back where we started. Where do you see Syria in a year or two from now?

Broken up into different fiefdoms, or are we just awaiting the rise of another strongman? Yeah, I think broken up into other fiefdoms. Let's just sort of talk about who's in there now and whether they're going to go away. As we know, the Americans are in there big time. I don't think we're going to leave. The Israelis are now in there. They weren't in there before the other day. Do you think the Israelis are going to leave? I don't think so.

The Turks are in there. They're not leaving. The Kurds have a big enclave. They're not leaving. And then when you look at the jihadis, all the different groups that are involved, we make a lot of noise about HTS, but there are all sorts of other groups as well. And do you think all of these groups are going to work together to create a coherent and viable Syria in the areas that they control?

I wouldn't bet a lot of money on it. So I think you're going to have chaos of sorts in Syria for the next year or two, if not longer. Right. Professor Mearsheimer, a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you very much for joining us. We are very, very close, probably within just a few hundred subscriptions of our goal of 500,000 subscriptions. We have come so close to that goal and we'll probably meet it in the next day or so in large measure because of you and because of your time and your brilliance and your willingness to allow me to pick that brain of yours. And I want you to know how grateful I am and how grateful our viewers are as well. Thank you. But there are many other people who appear on your show who are as

good, if not better than I am. So it's not just me alone. And of course, you matter a lot too. And as I've said to you before, you're doing a great service. Thank you. Without you, there would be no service. But without people like you, thank you very much, Professor Mears-Shermer. Hope we'll see you again next week. Definitely. Thank you. All the best. And coming up, remaining today at 3 o'clock, Phil Giraldi and a full day tomorrow. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. I'm out.