Judging Freedom - Prof. John Mearsheimer: Why the US is Threatening China

Episode Date: June 5, 2025

Prof. John Mearsheimer: Why the US is Threatening ChinaSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

you Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, June 5th, 2025. My dear friend, Professor John Mearsheimer joins us now. Professor Mearsheimer, a pleasure. As always, thank you for joining us. I do want to spend some time with you on the issue of why is Secretary Hegseth threatening China? But before we get to that, I need to elicit your views on the latest international events.

Who do you think are the likely culprits of the drone attacks on the Russian military and civilian sites? Is it even conceivable this was done without CIA or MI6 involvement? It's hard for me to imagine that the CIA didn't know about this. I mean, we have been working very closely with Ukrainian intelligence since the start of this war. In fact, we basically helped turn the intelligence capability inside of Ukraine into what it is today. I mean, we were a principal driving force. We're joined at the hip with them.

And the idea that an operation of this consequence would be unknown to the CIA is for me hard to believe. If it is known to the CIA, is the fact that it was known to the CIA known to Russian intelligence. You know, the flip side of this question is, when President Trump told President Putin the US didn't know about it,

was he laughing behind Trump's back? I don't know what the Russians knew. I think it's quite clear they didn't know the operation was coming. They were caught by surprise. I think they probably did not believe Trump when he said that he didn't know about this. Now, whether Trump actually did know about it is an open question. You know, you would think that any president of the United States would have been briefed on something of such a consequence. But in Trump's case, it is possible, given that he's not that

interested in being briefed by the intelligence community, that maybe they didn't tell him what was going down. Again, that's know about it, I would think they should be fired for incompetence for not knowing it. Or if it was intentionally kept from them, whoever in the CIA or US intelligence, I realize there's 17 or 18 different intelligence agencies knew about it and kept it from their superiors should be fired. I mean, the country can't survive if we have a rogue intelligence agency operating or signing off on acts of violence with a nuclear-powered country. Well, I understand what you're saying. I mean, first of all, this was initiated during the Biden administration, and I would imagine that the Biden administration knew all about it. One would also expect that the Biden administration informed the Trump administration,

One would also expect that the Biden administration informed the Trump administration and that the Trump administration, the intelligence services in the Trump administration were following this one closely. But it appears that they're arguing that the president didn't know, that the president wasn't told. And this is quite shocking if it is true. But I don't know exactly what to say. I mean, what do you expect from this administration at this point in time except something like

this? Hmm. You know, I was taken aback. One of our guests today pointed out, it may have been Scott Ritter, normally when President Putin makes a threat, either publicly or privately, and we learn about it in the West, President Trump denounces it. He's crazy. I'm sick of this. I don't want this violence. It's killing too many people. Yet Trump himself, Chris, can you put that full screen of the truth social up? Trump himself said of his conversation with President Putin, quote,

it was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate peace. President Putin did say and very strongly that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields. And then nothing. Normally, I don't want him to do it or I'll deal with this. Nothing like that. So either he is out of it or he understands that Putin has to do what he has to do. I think the operative word in that truth social message that you just put up is good. Whenever Trump tweets about anything, he invariably uses words like,

it was a tremendous conversation, it was a wonderful conversation and so forth and so on. He uses hyperbolic language to portray his interactions with other leaders in a positive manner. Right. Right. He does that all the time. A big, beautiful bill. He loves language like that. Exactly. And when he says it was just a good conversation, you know that Putin read him the riot act. That's what happened here. Putin is furious. And I think Trump understands why he's furious. We targeted one leg of their strategic nuclear triad. This really matters. And Putin let him know that. And Putin let him know that he is gonna retaliate

in apparently a major way. And Trump understood that there was not much he could do about it, that we had screwed up big time and now he just have to suck it up and take what Putin told him. And that's what this tweet to me says. You can probably imagine that President Putin is the moderate in the 20 or 30 people in

his inner circle that they're pounding the table demanding the obliteration of Ukraine. I mean, Pepe Escobar is going to be on with us in a few minutes from Russia, but just from his reporting the anger is palpable and universal. Now Doug McGregor calls this a PR stunt but you know it's a PR stunt having the opposite effect from whatever the Ukrainians intended. When you say it's a PR stunt you mean what the Ukrainians were doing was a PR stunt? Yes, yes. Well, I think that Doug is right in the sense that this was designed to, in effect, damage the possibility of the Russians coming out on top in the negotiations in Istanbul on Monday.

I don't think the timing of this attack was accidental. It was designed to undermine the negotiations between the Russians and the Ukrainians that the Ukrainians want nothing to do with and that we're pushing them into. So in that sense, you could say it's a PR stunt, but I think it goes far beyond that, not because the consequences of these attacks

on these different airfields is gonna influence what happens in the actual events on the battlefield. the consequences of these attacks on these different airfields is going to influence what happens in the actual events on the battlefield. I think it matters for hardly anything. I think, again, what really matters is that we hit at forces that comprise one part of their strategic nuclear triad. This is hugely consequential. This is something we should have never done. And I think Trump probably now recognizes that. How much damage did we do? Do you know? No. It's very hard to tell. I mean, there are a number of people like Alastair Crook,

you know, who believe that the Ukrainians probably destroyed a handful of planes, four or five planes. There are others who put the number up around 10, 12, 13, and then there's the Ukrainian claim that they destroyed 41. I think the number is probably somewhere between 5 and 14, and probably closer to five. And I don't think in the end we did that much damage. And I think we're lucky we didn't do much damage because again, this is one leg of their strategic nuclear triad. Do you know enough about how these drones actually work to give an opinion about whether all of this

could have been calibrated without MI6 or CIA? Well, I think that the Ukrainians have plenty of experience with drone warfare. I mean, both the Russians and the Ukrainians are on the cutting edge of developing drone technology and employing drones in situations like this. So I think they had that capability. I would imagine that where the Americans really helped was with intelligence, telling them what the target set looked like and so forth and so on. That's where I think we would come in.

But I wouldn't underestimate the Ukrainians ability to deal with the drone end of this operation. where I think we would come in. But I wouldn't underestimate the Ukrainians' ability to, you know, deal with the drone end of this operation. Before we jump to another subject, can you sort of get your hands around how any CIA could have known about this and the head of the about this and the head of the agency didn't. Are there rogue CIA agents who, a la Senator Lindsey Graham, wanna run their own foreign policy? Well, we do know that there is a deep state

that thwarted Donald Trump the first time he was president. There's just no question about that. And Trump has now adopted a number of policy views, especially with regard to Ukraine, and especially with regard to Russia, that the deep state is not happy with. And it is possible that the deep state is trying to undermine him here. But from the outside, it's impossible to tell exactly what's going on.

Is Donald Trump in charge of American foreign policy? Well, this is the key issue here. I mean, you have two different forces at play. One is the argument I was just laying out that the deep state obviously has an incentive to thwart at least some of President Trump's policies. At the same time, the administration is so incompetent when it comes to executing foreign policy that it could be that what's going on here is that it's a blunderpuss operation by the Trump administration. It's not the deep state at play, or it could be a combination of the two,

or it could be just the deep state in operation or at work. But we just can't tell from the outside what's going on. Right, right. Okay. What is the status from your understanding of Netanyahu's strategic starvation of the Gazans? Is this continuing or is enough aid getting through so that babies aren't dying of malnutrition? I think hardly any aid is getting through.

The Israelis and the Americans came up with this actually very cynical scheme that was designed to provide very little food for the starving Palestinians. And then when they moved to the points where the food was being delivered, the Israelis murdered a significant number of the Palestinians. It's just absolutely horrible to watch what's happening here. And now the Israelis have suspended those humanitarian shipments into Gaza. This is a total disaster.

And it's amazing that the Americans haven't stood up to the Israelis and told them that they have to put an end to this. But is is the world getting sick and tired of this? Oh, there's no question the world's getting sick and tired of it. If you just read the European press, that even the Germans who were Israel's staunchest supporters have said enough is enough. The new German Chancellor called Netanyahu and told him that he had to let food into Gaza immediately. And that word immediately was used by Chancellor Mears. It's hardly surprising.

I think any decent human being watching what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians can help but recoil by this behavior. And this includes almost all Western leaders, to the Palestinians can help it recoil by this behavior. And this includes almost all Western leaders, the one exception being Donald Trump. I'm going to play a clip for you of Secretary of Defense, Heg Seth.

It's about a minute and a half long. To me, it's over the top and off the wall, but you have an extraordinary understanding of the Chinese government, its military, its policies, and its relationship to the United States. So we'll watch it together first. Chris, cut number 12. We cannot look away and we cannot ignore it. China's behavior toward its neighbors and the world is a wake-up call. Any attempt by communist China to conquer Taiwan by force would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world.

There's no reason to sugarcoat it. The threat China poses is real and it could be imminent. We hope not, but it certainly could be. It has to be clear to all that Beijing is credibly preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific. We know, it's public, that Xi has ordered his military to be capable of invading Taiwan by 2027. Ultimately, a strong, resolute, and capable network of allies and partners

is our key strategic advantage. China envies what we have together, and it sees what we can collectively bring to bear on defense. But it's up to all of us to ensure that we live up to that potential by investing. Where to start? What's the wake-up call that he claims? Well, I think what's going on here is that the United States government, this is the Trump administration, believes that the principal threat that the United States faces is in East Asia. But at the same time, we are pinned down in the Middle East

and we are pinned down in Ukraine. And we are unable to pay sufficient attention to containing China. That's point number one. Point number two is the administration has done a terrible job winning friends and treating allies well in East Asia. We're having real problems there getting our allies

and countries that are leaning towards us, but couldn't be called allies, to side with us to contain the Chinese. This is a huge problem for the United States because, again, the Trump administration considers China to be the principal threat. And there's no question, the Chinese have made it clear that they want to take Taiwan back, and they've made it clear they'll take it back with military force if need be. So the question is, what does the United States do? And the United States should adopt a containment policy to make sure that China doesn't take Taiwan back by military force.

I know you don't agree with me on that, but I think in that case, the Trump administration is correct. But the truth is we're doing a ham-fisted job of containing the Chinese. And what Hegseth is doing is trying to, you know, rally the troops in East Asia. He's trying to, you know, hype the threat, say there's a real threat here that we have to worry about and we have to do more to contain that threat. But it's hard to get that message through when you treat allies badly

and when you're focused on the Middle East and Ukraine at the expense of East Asia. Is China a military threat to the United States? Well, the question here that you have to ask yourself is do you care whether China dominates Asia? And the United States has made it clear both in the Biden administration and in the Trump administration,

I believe this will be the case in any administration moving forward that China dominating East Asia and pushing us out of East Asia is unacceptable. So we intend to stay in East Asia. And what we intend to do is to contain China. We don't want China to take Taiwan back by military force. We don't... But Taiwan is part of China, according to the United States Congress. That's true.

Legislation signed by President Carter. That's true. De jure. but de facto it's not. And the United States wanted to conquer Puerto Rico. Would we expect the Chinese to intervene? Of course not. There's no doubt about that. But this is, you know, East Asia. The United States is a regional hegemon in the Western Hemisphere. We dominate the Western Hem hemisphere. And you, the principal proponent of realism and academia in the world, would recognize we have our sphere, the Russians have their sphere, the Chinese have their sphere. No, I don't view the world in those terms. I think from an American point of view, the ideal situation is to be a regional hegemon and to make sure that no other country is a regional

hegemon in its area of the world. So we have established regional hegemony in the Western hemisphere, which from a strategic point of view is the best possible situation for the United States. And at the same time, we went to great lengths over the course of the 20th century to make sure that Imperial Germany, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union did not dominate either Europe or Asia the way we dominate the Western hemisphere. And that same basic logic is at play here today

in East Asia with regard to China. If China- I would ask you, I have a simple question for you. Do you think we should have contained the Soviet Union in Europe during the Cold War? Well, yeah, of course we should have because we wanted Europe to be free. Well, this is different. China and China owns Taiwan. I mean, let me ask you this.

If China does use military force to oust the government in Taiwan, how could the United States possibly intervene? It's 10,000 miles away. The fact is the United States has massive military forces in East Asia. We're there. We're on China's doorstep. This, by the way, is the reason that the Chinese want us out of East Asia. It's very important to understand that the logic that you've been purveying to me is logic that the Chinese fully understand. And I appreciate that they understand that. Would the American public tolerate a war over Taiwan? I don't think it matters what the American public would tolerate as you know policymakers in the United States make decisions

Regardless of what the American public wants We would decide to defend Taiwan if we saw fit and we wouldn't care much about what the American public thought Was Pete had Seth saber rattling or were his warnings and threats solidly, evidentially based? I do not think based on the clip that I just saw that he was saber rattling. He's not talking about starting a war against China. There's no evidence that he had any interest in a war against China He was making comments with which are consistent with a containment policy. I

Wonder where it will go Where it will go from here. I just can't imagine the United States in a full-fledged war Against China over Taiwan and Taiwan surviving the war. Listen, in the early 2000s, I started arguing loudly and clearly that if China rose, we were gonna be in a terrible security competition where there would be a real possibility of war.

And most people dismissed me at the time and they argued that we should continue to fuel China's growth. Remember, we brought them into the World Trade Organization in 2001, and we helped China grow to be the mighty power that it is today. And unsurprisingly to me, the Chinese have decided to convert a lot of that economic might into military might. And they've began to think in East Asia the way we think in the Western Hemisphere. They are a traditional great power. It's not that the Chinese are evil. They want to dominate East Asia for the sake of- Why don't more people listen to John Mearsheimer?

Well, you don't want them to listen to me now. Yes, I do. I love you. You're my friend. You're extraordinarily smart. We just happen to disagree on this, but it's a field. It's your field. It's not mine. We're not debating some arcane principle of constitutional law. We're debating a field in which you have unrivaled expertise. And I appreciate the challenge of going up against the superstar. And I appreciate you being on the show more than I can tell you.

So thank you. You never wanna underestimate the fact that I am sometimes wrong. I'd like to think that I'm infallible, but I am sometimes wrong. Your modesty becomes think that I'm infallible, but I am sometimes wrong. Your modesty becomes you. Thank you, Professor Mearsheimer.

Always a pleasure. I must run to another commitment, otherwise we'd keep this up. I can see the chatters want us to keep this up, but we will resume it next time. Thank you, Professor. All the best. My pleasure, and all the best to you.

Thank you. A great human being, truly a great, brilliant, charming, modest man, modest about his brilliance. Coming up at four o'clock, Colonel Wilkerson, and at 4.30 from deep in the heart of Russia with some very, very strong opinions about what he expects President Putin to do, Pepe Escobar, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. You