Judging Freedom - Prof. John Mearsheimer : US Escalates the Ukraine War

Episode Date: July 15, 2025

Prof. John Mearsheimer : US Escalates the Ukraine WarSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle III, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the Grandview shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in the supernatural thriller that will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series.

Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. music Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, July 15, 2025. Professor John Mearsheimer will be here with us in just a moment. But first this. We all know how devastating war is. Lives lost, communities destroyed. But war can also threaten your financial freedom.

That's where America's heading, our growing involvement in global conflicts. It means more spending, more debt, and a weaker dollar. That's a direct hit to your wallet. So here are three things to keep your eyes on. Exploding debt, declining dollar, rising prices of gold and silver. These things are already happening.

Goldman Sachs predicts gold could hit $4,500 an ounce by 2026. Why? Because central banks and smart investors are buying gold hand over fist. They know what's coming and they're hedging against it. because central banks and smart investors are buying gold hand over fist. They know what's coming and they're hedging against it. Currency collapse, inflation and market volatility. Gold has been a trusted store of value for thousands of years and today we need that protection more than ever.

Call Lear Capital now at 800-511-4620 or visit learjudsnap.com. No one is going to protect your wealth for you. You need to do it yourself. And now is the time. Professor Mirshammer, welcome here, my dear friend. Thank you for accommodating my schedule. I want to talk to you at some length about Trump and Ukraine and whether he's actually

escalating the war. But before we get there, a couple of questions about Iran. Do you think Iran will just sit back and watch and wait for Netanyahu to plot his next attack? Well, I think that they understand that there's a very good chance that Netanyahu will attack again, either with direct military force or indirectly. And they are, as we are talking, planning on how to defend themselves and also how to attack Israel if necessary.

I mean, the Iranians have no illusions about what they're dealing with here, not only with regard to Israel, but with regard to the United States as well. And I think they're spending endless hours plotting to figure out the best way to deal with those two adversaries. I mean, one wonders why they went along with the ceasefire when they seemed to have had the upper hand that did far, far more damage to Israel than Israel did to them. Yeah, I agree with that. I think if I were playing their hand, I would have tried to string it out for at least another week. I think the Israelis were really hurting. And I think that, as I've said before, they really spooked the Americans

when it looked like they were going to put mines in the Persian Gulf, specifically at the Strait of Hormuz. And so I think actually, as I've said before, that the Iranians have real cards to play here. I mean, first of all, they've made it clear that they can do a significant amount, if not an enormous amount of damage to Israel. And they can play better than the Israelis can the game of attrition warfare. And furthermore, they have the option of shutting down the Straits of Hormuz.

And that is a really formidable threat. So the Iranians are not without cards here. Did Trump's bombing of Iran make the Middle East more stable or more volatile? I think it made it more volatile. I think it has dragged us into a war with Iran, which is a very dangerous situation. The Biden administration, much to its credit, avoided fighting a war against Iran. As we both remember, in 2024, the Israelis twice tried to bait the Biden administration into getting into a war with Iran.

But of course, Iran didn't want a war with the United States or with Israel for that matter. And the Biden administration didn't want a war with Iran either. So we did not have a war between the United States and Iran. Trump has foolishly gone to war against Iran. On June 22nd, he launched a major attack against Iran. So we're now in that conflict with the Israelis. And it's very hard to see what the end game is here. It is hard to see what the end game is here. The United States has no interest whatsoever in any of this other than

its perverse desire to please whatever Prime Minister Netanyahu and his governing coalition seem to want at the moment. I mean, what do you think Netanyahu and Trump talked about in their three meetings last week in the White House? Well, I think that they talked about Gaza for one, and I think they talked about Iran for two. I mean, those are the two big issues on the table. And I think what Netanyahu wanted from Trump was permission, in effect, to go back after Iran if there was any evidence that Iran was enriching uranium once again and that the United States was not willing to attack Iran. The Israelis wanted to be able to do it by themselves.

And then I'm sure he also went to Great Lakes Netanyahu, that is, to try to convince Trump that if the Iranians do enrich, the United States as well as the Israelis have to go back after Iran. And then there's the whole subject of the Gaza genocide. I think what Netanyahu wants to do is make sure there is no ceasefire, certainly no permanent ceasefire, and that he's able to ethnically cleanse as much as possible Gaza and even the West Bank. And he seems to have Trump fully on board in that regard. And I think these trips are designed to make sure that Trump is with Netanyahu.

Because as I've emphasized before, it's very important to understand that the Israelis are highly dependent on the United States, not only for the genocide, but for military operations in places like Iran, and by the way, Syria and Lebanon, where they're fighting as we speak. So when you're fighting all these wars and executing a genocide, and you're a small country and your resources are greatly limited, you need a patron. And the patron, of course, in this case is Uncle Sugar. And then there's no there's no stopping Netanyahu unless his patron for some

reason gets sick and tired of it, which doesn't appear to be the case because of the grip that the donor class has on the patron. This is a vicious cycle to which there is no end. Yeah, there's no question about that. I mean, this you look forward with regard to the Middle East and with regard to Ukraine, it's a bleak picture for as far as the eye can see. Wow.

Let's transition over to Ukraine. But before we do, do you think that this imbroglio over Jeffrey Epstein in any way affects US-Israeli relations or do you think members of Congress and the people that are in Apex pocket expect Mossad to blackmail them? It's going to have no effect on US-Israeli relations. It's going to have no effect on the power of the lobby. the the and the United States is so solid, and the power of the lobby is so awesome, that it's gonna take a major earthquake to shake that relationship in any meaningful way.

Beyond Donald Trump changing his mind as he seems to do from day to day, although not on this issue. Yeah, I mean, on this issue, Trump has been remarkably consistent. I mean, on this issue, Trump has been remarkably consistent. I mean, you want to remember right before he moved into the White House, that was on January 20th, he basically sent Steve Witkoff to the Middle East and forced the Israelis to accept a ceasefire. And at that point, people were beginning to say maybe Trump is different than he was during his first term,

and maybe he's different than Joe Biden and previous presidents besides Biden. But shortly after he moved into the White House and then Israel violated that ceasefire, it became clear that that was a pipe dream and that if anything, Trump number two is as wedded to Israel as Trump number one was. And he was, when he was in the White House the first time, deeply wedded to Israel. Right. All right, switching gears to Ukraine, I'm going to play a clip for you of a Q&A, edited down because you've seen it already, to Donald Trump about his knowledge of the pause on the delivery of weapons to Ukraine. And then we're going to play what he said yesterday where he claimed he knew about it all along. And then I'm going to ask you, how do you view this gibberish? We're going to send some more weapons. We have to, they have to be able to defend themselves.

They're getting hit very hard now. No weapons to Ukraine as you said last night. Last week the Pentagon paused some shipments of weapons to Ukraine. Did you approve of that pause? We want to put defensive weapons because Putin is not he's not treating human beings right. It's killing too many people so we're sending some defensive weapons to Ukraine and I've approved that yesterday You said that you were not sure who ordered the munitions Halted to Ukraine. Have you since been able to figure that out?

Well, I haven't thought about it because we're looking at Ukraine right now and munitions, but I have no, I have not gone into it. What does it say that such a big decision could be made inside your government without you knowing? Uh, I would know. If a decision was made, I will know. I'll be the first to know. In fact, most likely I'd give the order, but I haven't done that.

Mr. President, is there any concern about the U.S. stockpiles? There was a pause in delivery of weaponry to Ukraine in order to evaluate, apparently, the U.S. stockpiles. What came out of that? The President. Evaluation. I mean, this was a very big — what we're talking about today is a very, very big day. And what Pete was doing — and me, too, I knew what Pete was doing, was evaluation because we knew this was going to happen. And now we actually

announced it. They voted on it, it's all been done. So obviously that has a big impact on, you know, when you say pause, obviously you're not going to be doing things if you don't know what's going to happen here. But we were pretty sure this was going to happen, so we did a little bit of a pause. You think the Kremlin abused this first. He said he didn't know about the delay. And then he said, if there had been a delay, he would have ordered it. Well, in fact, there was a delay and he didn't order it.

Then he said, that was yesterday, the last one. I knew all along what Pete was doing. We delayed in order to evaluate how much equipment we have. They are running low on gear. But how does the Kremlin view this gibberish and self justification? I wouldn't imagine that they view it the same way you and I view it as gibberish

and contradictory and the kind of behavior that you would not expect from the president of the United States. I mean, Trump thinks that he can fly by the seat of his pants. He can just get out into public and deal with very important issues off the top of his head. He thinks he doesn't have to think through an issue before he talks about it. He thinks he can just sort of make arguments as he sees fit.

And if he wants to change his arguments from day to day or hour to hour, he thinks he could do that as well. This is not an effective way to execute foreign policy. None of his predecessors have ever come close to behaving this way. This is unprecedented. the right? One wonders what Vladimir Putin thinks when he has conversations with Trump, knowledgeable of Trump's erratic and consistent, I'm actually going to call it intellectually dishonest ways. I'm sure that he thinks the same thing that you would think, but you want to remember that Putin really has no choice but to talk to Trump. He just has to pick up the phone and he has to carry on a conversation with him. But of course, the whole time this conversation is going on, he's fully cognizant of what

he's dealing with. And basically, I think Putin understands that you don't want to place much stock in anything that Trump says. And what you want to focus on are the basic facts that surround the situation you're dealing with. And I would imagine that when Putin looks at what Trump said yesterday, he didn't pay much attention to all the bloviating. And what he really wanted to know is what kind of weapons is Trump likely to be able to send to the Europeans,

to send to the Ukrainians? How likely is it that they'll put these secondary sanctions on in 50 days, and so forth and so on? I think that Putin, as you would expect, is just looking at the basic facts and logic that underpin the situation and he's really not paying much attention to what Trump has to say because paying attention to what Trump has to say just doesn't get you very far. Scott Ritter has referred to Ukraine speaking of its military and maybe its government,

but certainly of its military as a hospice patient waiting to die. Is that a fair analogy? Yes, I think that's a fair analogy. And does this crazy new system that he announced yesterday whereby the CIA, not the Defense Department, is going to sell military equipment to NATO, not to the individual countries, and they're going to give, lease, somehow get it to Kiev. This is a bizarre and circuitous route, but is it likely to have an effect on the ultimate outcome of the special military operation, Professor Mearsheimer?

First of all, as you say, this is kind of a Rube Goldberg device for getting weaponry to the Ukrainians. I don't understand what the purpose of this is, other than maybe to get the Europeans to pay for the equipment. But in terms of what is going to be the effect on the battlefield, that question that you asked, that is the key issue. And you want to ask yourself two questions. What exactly are they sending to Ukraine? What are the weapons that are going to change the situation on the battlefield? Either allow the Ukrainians to stymie the Russian offensives or actually turn the tide. And we have to know what those weapons are, and then we have to be told a plausible story about how those weapons will affect events on the battlefield. And we have no idea what the

weapons are. They talk about patriot missiles. There are not many patriot missiles, but even if they give them a sufficient number of patriot missiles, that's not many patriot missiles. But even if they give them a sufficient number of patriot missiles, that's not going to affect what's happening on the battlefield, because patriots are basically in the rear area. They're not up front affecting the fights on the ground. But we don't even have enough patriots, not only in the United States, but in Europe

as well, to give to the Ukrainians to make a difference in the air war. And in terms of weaponry that might affect events on the battlefield, there's just nothing there. And nobody in the administration or in NATO has said anything about what those weapons are. So, again, this is just empty rhetoric. Trump is flailing. He's flailing because he's failing.

You have to understand that. Trump is failing in Gaza. He's failing vis-a-vis Iran, and he's failing vis-a-vis the Russians in the Ukraine war. He has not been successful. For all his talk about shutting down these wars shortly after he got into the White House, none of that's happened.

And indeed what's happened is we've gotten deeper and deeper into the mud. No question about it. He said as recently as yesterday, it's Biden's war, not his. I don't think anybody believes that. It is clearly as much his war as it was Biden's. Exactly. Exactly. There's just, you know, you and I believe it was his war, you know,

first, right? Correct. But after what happened yesterday, it's clearly his war. And again, we do want to emphasize that he is not telling us a story about how this war ends. And this war, it looks like, is going to go on for a long time. And even once you get a frozen conflict, it's going to be poisonous relations for as far as the eye can see between Russia on one side, the United States, Europe, and Ukraine on the other side. Well, there's no question about that we are at war with Russia. We don't have boots on the ground, but we have equipment there that arrives every day.

Yeah I like to refer to it as an almost war. How about pro-belligerency? There's no, I don't want to split hairs. Are you concerned about German militarism and the advancement of the German military industrial complex under Chancellor Mertz? Not really. I mean, I think the idea that you're gonna get the second coming of either Imperial Germany or the Third Reich is not in the cards.

That's not going to happen. I think Germany is the most powerful state in Europe, putting aside the Russians. But I don't think that the German military is going to become so powerful that it's going to become a threat to conquer other countries. I think the one thing to worry about is what happens if Germany decides it's

going to get nuclear weapons. If the United States begins to pull the security umbrella out from over Germany's head, and that security umbrella, of course, could be called the nuclear umbrella. And the Germans don't have nuclear weapons of their own. The French and the British do, but the Germans don't. The weapons of their own. The French and the British do, but the Germans don't. The Germans are physically closer to Russia and to Ukraine than the French and the British are. The Germans will be powerfully tempted to get nuclear weapons. And that could be very messy.

That could really spook the Russians. And so that's my main concern about the Germans. But I don't think the Germans are a threat to conquer Europe as they once tried to do in World War II. I recognize that, but do you think this rattles the Kremlin? I mean, there are voices in the Kremlin that are advising President Putin public voices to attack German munitions plants.

I mean, that really raises this to another level. I don't think Putin would do it. He's so methodical and careful, but his advisors are asking him to do it. Well, I think there's no question about that. It'll rattle the Kremlin. There's no question about that. And by the way, there are people in Russia,

strategists who I know, who are reasonable people, who are saying that it's really time for the Russians to think about using nuclear weapons, if not now somewhere down the road. I think the Russian attitude towards nuclear use, and I think this view is mirrored to some extent in the West as well, is very different than it was for most

of the Cold War. By the late part of the Cold War, second half of the Cold War, I think almost everybody who studied security issues understood that it was impossible to imagine a situation where using nuclear weapons made any sense at all. And furthermore, it was very important to go to enormous lengths not to put the Russians, or in those days, the Soviets, or the Americans in a situation where they might countenance using nuclear weapons.

This was certainly true after the Cuban Missile Crisis. We did not want to repeat that. But if you look at the situation that we're in today in Ukraine, just going back to our conversation a few minutes ago about whether the United States and Russia are at war in Ukraine, just going back to our conversation a few minutes ago about whether the United States and Russia are at war in Ukraine. You see, we're in a whole different world here, and we're in a much more dangerous world in terms of relations between Moscow and Washington.

And again, the possibility of nuclear weapons being used, I would argue, is not great, but it's much more real than I thought was possible. I didn't think we would be where we are today with regard to this whole question of whether one of those countries will use nuclear weapons, but that's where we are. John Maass Professor Meir Schoenmer, I must run. I wish we could continue the conversation, but I have other commitments and as you may know, I will be traveling. So we'll see you at the end of the month. Thank you very much for your time. All the conversation, but I have other commitments. And as you may know, I will be traveling. So we'll see you at the end of the month. Thank you very much for your time.

All the best, Professor. Thank you much and safe travels to you, Judge. Of course. And coming up at four o'clock today, from Capitol Hill, where we got inside a Republican congressional meeting. I can't wait to ask him about this. Who else? Max Blumenthal, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thanks for watching!