Judging Freedom - Prof. John Mearsheimer : Why Ukraine Will Lose

Episode Date: June 9, 2026

Prof. John Mearsheimer : Why Ukraine Will LoseSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Undeclared wars are commonplace. Pragically, our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people. Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government. To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected. What if sometimes to love your country you had to alter or abolish the government? the government. What if Jefferson was right? What if that government is best, which governs least?

What if it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong? What if it is better to perish fighting for freedom than to live as a slave? What if freedom's greatest hour of danger is now? Everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for judging freedom. Today is Tuesday, June 9th, 2006, Professor John Mearsheimer will be with us in just a moment on why Ukraine will lose its war with Russia. But first this. Today's headlines aren't just bleak. They're an indictment of a government that has abandoned the Constitution. You are witnessing the direct result of the Federal Reserve's relentless war on the value of your dollar.

For centuries, gold and silver have been the ultimate shield against the state's favorite tools, monetary expansion and runaway inflation. To protect your wealth is to protect your liberty. And you can do that with gold and silver. I own both and continue to buy because J.P. Morgan is now lying gold at over $6,300 an ounce. And Bank of America is suggesting silver could reach $300. That's great news for precious metal investors. Don't wait for Washington to fix a mess they created. Secure your freedom today. Take possession of your precious metals or diversify your IRA by adding gold and silver. Call 800, 511, 4620 to see if you qualify for up to $20,000 in bonus medals. That's 800, 511, 4620 or go to Learjudgeonap.com.

Professor Mirosheimer, good day to you, my dear friend. And as always, thank you for joining us. Before we get to Ukraine, about which I want to speak with you, why do you think Iran is willing to risk war with the United States and Israel in order to get the Israelis to stop attacking Lebanon? I think the Iranians fully understand that they're in the driver's seat here. As you go up the escalation ladder, they win it almost. every turn. It's really quite remarkable where things are today regarding the balance of power between Iran on one side and Israel and the United States on the other side when you compare the present situation to what it looked like on February 27th. On February 27th, it looked like we had

all the coercive leverage that we were in the driver's seat and that we, if we were smart, would be able to coerce the Iranians into a deep. that was very favorable to us. But what's happened as this war has developed since February 28th is that the balance of power has really shifted in favor of the Iranians. And you saw what happened this past week. It's truly remarkable. The Iranians struck Israel before Israel struck Iran.

This has never happened before. And furthermore, the Iranians have made it perfectly clear. that they're willing to go up the escalation ladder with the United States and with Israel. Now, Israel may be willing to go up the escalation ladder, but President Trump is certainly not willing to do that. He wants to shut this one down. So we're in a situation now where the Iranians are in the driver's seat when it comes to the military balance. And furthermore, as I've long argued from Iran's point of view, the longer this war goes on, the better. And I would argue that even if the war escalates, it's in Iran's advantage because more of the flow of oil and other materials out of the Gulf and maybe even the Red Sea will be stopped.

And that will damage the international economy. And that in turn will give Iran more leverage over us. Has the United States materially degraded Iran's military and army? offensive and defensive weaponry as the president's been claiming for weeks? Well, there's two points to be made here. The answer is, sure, they have, but not very much. Most estimates are that the Iranians have about 80% of the number of missiles that they had at the start of the war. So they still have lots of missiles, which are very accurate that they can throw at Israel, at American military installations in the Gulf and at the Gulf states.

themselves. And those, again, are very accurate missiles. Point number two is that we have seriously depleted our stockpiles of weaponry. And President Trump, therefore, cannot afford to restart the air war because we don't have the munitions to use in a war of that sort, because we have to preserve those munitions for other contingencies like China. This is one of the principal reasons that the Iranians are in the driver's see. I'm going to play a clip from one of the worst interviews Trump has ever given. This is the one he stormed away from. We're not playing the part where it shows him storming away. But of course, he's of the view that they don't have 80%, they have 22%. God only knows where he got that from. But I'd like your thoughts on this. Chris, cut in a

number four. When you were campaigning, you said you would rip up the Iran nuclear deal, but negotiate a better deal. Why didn't you negotiate a better deal at the time? Because after it was ripped up, there weren't guardrails and they escalated their production of enriched geraniums. Excuse me. It takes years to do these things. These people have been fighting for 47 years. They've been killing Americans. They've been taken off their legs and their arm and their faces have been hurt so badly and so horribly. I'm moving very fast. I'm into three months.

You know, Vietnam lasted 19 years. I'm into my third month. And all I do is say, well, when are you going to win? If I were a Democrat, nobody would be talking that way. But it doesn't matter to me. I've gotten so used to it. Look, we have totally destroyed their military. They have some missiles left.

They have some drones left. Do you know how many missiles? Yes, exactly. How many? I don't want to tell you. Can you give me a ballpark? But they have some left. No.

But I know almost to the number. And we know where they are too. And we know where their drones are. And we know where their drone factories. Most of the drone factories have been knocked out. Most of the launching pads have been knocked out. And most of the missile manufacturing areas have been knocked out. But they still have capacity.

They have some missiles. They have some drones. I would say percentage wise, maybe 21, 22 percent of their missiles. of their missiles. It's a lot of missiles, but it's not what it was when we first attacked. So you're saying they have 21, 22 percent of their missiles left? Correct, yes. It's got to be propaganda at Professor Mearsheimer. Well, I don't know if propaganda is the right word. As you know, he just makes things up.

And the fact is that the intelligence community, not John Mearsheimer, but the U.S. intelligence community estimates that they have about 80 percent of the military. in their inventory that they had at the start of the war on February 28th. So he's simply wrong. He's also wrong on all sorts of other issues. You want to remember, he pulled out of the JCPOA in the summer of 2018, and he did not leave office until January of 2021. And over that two and a half year period, which is a pretty long period of time, he did nothing to get a number. another deal with the Iranians to replace the JCPOA in large part because he was not interested. He thought that he could coerce the Iranians into submission, but he was wrong.

And then he took office last January, January 2025, and he's done hardly anything to get a new deal. Now, he says this is going to take a long time. Well, all I would say is if this is going to take a long time, why, is he talking about quickly getting a nuclear deal with Iran now? If you listen to him talk about the deal that we're close to ceiling with Iran, it has an important nuclear dimension to it. How is it that he was able to do this so quickly when he just told us that it takes a long time to do these deals?

The truth is, it does take a long time to do these deals, which makes one wonder if we're ever going to get a nuclear deal with the Iranians. And in the meantime, I would not be surprised if they began to pursue a bomb. So at the time he ripped up, metaphorically, ripped up the JCPLA. Iran's nuclear enrichment was at 3.67 and totally available for international inspection. And the Strait of Hormuz was open. Now the nuclear enrichment is about 67% not open to inspection, kept in secret. And the Strait of Hormuz is the Strait of Hormuz, not open.

the way he'd like it. Can Netanyahu defy Trump? Can Trump defy Netanyahu? I think we're in a very special situation here. It's different than anything I've seen before. It's very important to understand that President Trump is under tremendous pressure to put an end to this war for both economic and political reasons. He's, He's facing a potentially catastrophic situation. You can see it in his demeanor. You can see it in how he's dealing with Netanyahu. He's desperate.

I think there's no question about that. And his desperation will increase with the passage of time because of the economic consequences of the straight remaining closed. So this means that President Trump has got to settle this war. And the problem that he faces is that the Iranians will not cave. Again, the Iranians are in the driver's seat here. They are driving a hard bargain. And therefore, if Trump wants to end this, he has to basically make major league concessions to the Iranians. But the problem is that the Israelis won't let him do that. And the lobby in this country, of course, won't let him do that.

But what is President Trump going to do? He just has to settle this one. So what you see him doing in this moment of desperation is putting greater and greater pressure on Israel. Saying things publicly about Netanyahu that he would not have dreamed of saying publicly a month ago or two months ago. But he's doing that because he's desperate. And I think what you're going to see moving forward is that as the level of desperation goes up on the part of President Trump, the harder he's going to push Netanyahu to do what he, President Trump, wants. And I wouldn't be surprised if we see President Trump acting in ways towards Israel that we've never seen in the past.

Now, if that doesn't happen, or if the Israelis are successful at resisting Trump, then the economic and political consequences for Trump and for the United States and for the rest of the world will be disastrous. Here's what Netanyahu told the Knesset about this subject on Sunday evening, Chris No. 7. A prime minister in Israel must have one specific essential ability, just one single ability. And if he lacks this fundamental quality, then he simply cannot be here in this position. He needs to be able to say one word to the President of the United States, and that word is no. Is he feeling the pressure?

Absolutely. He's in a similar situation to Trump. I mean, you want to understand that inside Israel, he is being criticized by his major opponents for being a softie, for not standing up to Trump. So any concessions that he, Netanyahu makes, is going to cause him huge headaches, because the opposition is going to pound him.

At the same time, he understands that he can only defy President Trump at this point in time so much because he understands that Trump is desperate, that Trump is putting unprecedented pressure on him. And that pressure will only be ratcheted up with the passage of time. So he has to make the kind of concessions to Trump that he wouldn't have dreamed about making in the past. But again, if he makes those concessions, he gets pounded from the right inside of Israel. Well, let me put it differently. He gets pounded by the opposition. Right. That pounding could be catastrophic to his premiership and to his personal freedom. If his government collapses.

Yeah, there's no question about that. He's in deep trouble. He and President Trump both committed a huge blunder on February 28. when they attacked Iran. They thought they were going to come out of this attack swimmingly, and exactly the opposite has happened. Here's posting from Joe Kent, the former director of counterterrorism, who by the way, will be on the show at 9 o'clock in the morning this Thursday. No deal is required for us to just walk away. It's evident that we can't stop either side from attacking the other. there's only one realistic choice we have. Stay and get sucked in further into the war or look out for our interests and just walk. Pretty clear.

Well, this is the type of advice Trump did not want to hear from him when he was giving Trump advice. Yeah, well, if he had listened to Trump to begin with, and actually, if Trump had listened to all of his principal advisors, save for Pete Hexit, he wouldn't be in this mess today. because all of his principal advisors understood it was a cockamamie scheme to attack Iran on February 28th. But here we are. I would just say with regard to Joe Ken's point, first of all, there is an alternative, and the alternative is to cut a deal. And that will be a deal that is very favorable to Iran. And that, of course, is why the Israelis, and even the Trump administration, doesn't want to cut that deal.

But that is the alternative. With regard to walking away, it's just very hard for the United States to walk away from this. Do you think the lobby is going to let us walk away? Do you think that the national security establishment, which is committed to policing every area of the planet, and especially the greater Middle East, is going to be willing to walk away? I don't think so. We're not going to walk away. I think we're going to stay.

And I think, therefore, the pressure on us to cut a deal is going to be enormous. And as said before, if Trump is unable to cut a deal, if he can't persuade the Israelis and the lobby inside this country to cooperate with him, if he can't persuade the Lindsay Graham's to cooperate and he's forced to continue the war as is, he's in deep trouble and we're in deep trouble. Transitioning to Ukraine, what kind of pressure is President Putin under to end the special military operation after nearly four and a half years? I think there's no question that there is pressure, some pressure on President Putin to end this war. I think there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction in Russia that the war is not over with. But I think the stories that you hear in the West about the pressure on Putin and the dissatisfaction with Putin are greatly exaggerated. My view of what's happening here, Judge, is that Ukraine is actually. losing on the battlefield and that people in the know on the inside recognize that.

And the last thing they want to do is say that out loud. And instead, what they are doing is conducting this massive propaganda campaign that basically says, number one, Ukraine has turned the tide on the battlefield. The Russians are in real trouble. They're suffering enormous casualties. The Ukrainian army is doing surprisingly well. Number two, the drone attacks deep into Russia are beginning to have a significant economic and political set of consequences on Putin and on Russia more generally.

And this bodes poorly for Russia's future. So all we have to do is keep up that drone war. And that combined with what's happening on the battlefield is really good news. And then, of course, the story is that Putin is weak, he's vulnerable, and he will eventually be overthrown, and Russia will get a new leader, and this new leader will be willing to accommodate Ukraine and the West. And if there is no change of government, if Putin remains in power, he'll be greatly weakened and forced to concede to us. I think this is a delusional set of I think the Ukrainians are clearly winning on the battlefield.

They're not winning quickly, but they're winning. You said Ukrainians are winning on the battlefield. I'm sorry, the Russians are winning on the battlefield, for sure. And not as quickly as I'm sure the Russian people and Russian leaders would like, but they are moving inexorably forward. And the Ukrainian military is in deep trouble. They're unable to raise large numbers of troops to replace those who are killed in battle. And furthermore, they have a huge problem with desertions.

I would estimate that the Russians outnumber the Ukrainians in terms of combat forces on the front lines, probably two to one. The Russians have an abundance of equipment or weaponry to use against Ukraine because of their massive industrial base. And because the United States and a number of European countries are no longer able to provide as much weaponry to Ukraine as they have in the past, the Ukrainians are having real trouble matching the Russians in terms of weaponry available on the battlefield. Yes, drones are helping the Ukrainians maintain the front lines somewhat on the front lines, but only up to a limited extent. And I think as we move forward, but you'll see, is that the Russians will end up capturing all of the territory in those four oblasts that they have formally annexed. And by the way, they're close to having done that already. You know, they control 85% of Donetsk. They control all of Lujansk.

I'd say they control about 75% of Zaporizia and about 75% of Hirsson. So they're in an excellent position. And very importantly, Ukraine is not in a position to ever join NATO, which was the principal goal of Russia from the beginning of this campaign. Professor Mir Schumer, thank you very much, my dear friend. Thanks for your analysis across the board. Good luck with our mutual friend with whom you will be in a few minutes, and we'll look forward to seeing you next week. Okay, Judge, and I look forward to seeing you next week. Thank you. All the best. Coming up later today at 2 o'clock this afternoon on all of this,

Matt Ho, and at 3 o'clock, Colonel Karen Kwikowski, Judge Nipaltona for Judging Freedom.