Judging Freedom - Professor John Mearsheimer: 2023 - Lessons for Biden, Zelenskyy, and Netanyahu

Episode Date: December 21, 2023

Embarking on a compelling dialogue, we engage in a profound exploration of the geopolitical landscape in 2023 alongside esteemed guest Professor John J. Mearsheimer. With his wealth of expertise, we dissect the lessons pertinent to key global figures such as President Joe Biden, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Professor Mearsheimer's deep insights promise to shed light on the intricate strategic decisions, diplomatic challenges, and geopolitical nuances that defined this pivotal year. This conversation serves as an intellectual journey, unraveling the tapestry of successes, setbacks, and essential takeaways that have shaped the political trajectories of these influential leaders within the intricate dynamics of international relations.#russia #ukraine #USMilitaryHistory #Israel #Gaza #ceasefire #hostages #Ukraine #zelenskyy #Biden #china #IsraelPalestine #MiddleEastConflict #PeaceInTheMiddleEast #GazaUnderAttack #Ceasefire #Jerusalem #prayforpeace #hostages #Israel #Gaza #ceasefire #hostages #Ukraine #zelenskyy #Biden #china #IsraelPalestine #MiddleEastConflict #PeaceInTheMiddleEast #GazaUnderAttack #Ceasefire #Jerusalem #prayforpeace #hostagesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This new year, why not let Audible expand your life by listening? Audible CA contains over 890,000 total titles within its current library, including audiobooks, podcasts, and exclusive Audible Originals that'll inspire and motivate you. Tap into your well-being with advice and insight from leading professionals and experts on better health, relationships, career, finance, investing, and more. Maybe you want to kick a bad habit or start a good one. If you're looking to encourage positive change in your life one day and challenge at a time, look no further than Tabitha Brown's I Did a New Thing, 30 Days to Living Free. In the audiobook, Tab shares her own stories and those of others alongside

gentle guidance and encouragement to create these incredible changes for yourself and see what good can come from them. Trust me, listening on Audible can help you reach the goals you set for yourself. Start listening today when you sign up for a free 30-day trial at audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. That's audible.com slash wonderyca. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, December 21st, 2023. Professor John Mearsheimer joins us now. Professor Mearsheimer, thank you very much for your time and for your insights. I'd like to talk big picture on the world scene, President Biden, President Zelensky, President Putin, Prime Minister Netanyahu, but let's start with Ukraine. Is Joe Biden the victim, the descendant, if you will, of a policy about Ukraine that began

back in the Clinton administration, or is he the architect of what now appears to be his own disaster? Well, there's no question that the decision to expand NATO to include Ukraine, which is the main cause of the present war, was made before Joe Biden even became vice president, much less president. But nevertheless, when he moved into the White House in January of 2021, what he did was ramp up the efforts to bring Ukraine into NATO. He was fiercely anti-Russian, fiercely pro-Ukrainian, and he pushed forward in ways that provoked a major crisis that lasted over all of 2021 and into early 2022. And he had opportunities to work out some sort of diplomatic solution to avoid a war. But instead of accommodating the Russians in any meaningful way, what he did was basically tell them that he was not going to change American or European policy at all.

And the end result is that we got this war. So I think in a very important way, he bears a lot of responsibility, although not all the responsibility for this disaster. I don't expect you to psychoanalyze him at all. That's not what we're here for. But what is the genesis of the animosity toward Russia? Is he stuck in a Cold War mentality like Victoria Nuland and Tony Blinken and Jake Sullivan appear to be? Well, I think that, first of all, most Democrats, and this would surely include Biden, believe that the reason Trump won in 2016 was because the Russians interfered in the election. Most Democrats refuse to believe that Hillary Clinton was just a bad candidate.

And Trump, in many ways, was a terrific politician. They, therefore, think that there has to be an alternative explanation, and that is that the Russians were involved. And they hate the Russians for that reason. Tremendous amount of Russophobia in the Democratic Party. Furthermore, I think a lot of it just has to do with the fact that Russia was the adversary in the Cold War. Of course, it was the Soviet Union back then, but we were sort of brought up to hate the Soviet Union, to fear the Soviet Union. And I think a lot of that has carried over to Russia today. And then finally, I think that Putin,

for a variety of reasons, has ended up as sort the ultimate bête noire in international politics. It's just very easy for people in the West to hate Putin. And I think a lot of that has to do with his views on subjects like gays and transsexual people and so forth and so on. But for all those reasons, Joe Biden intensely dislikes Russia and Vladimir Putin in particular. Do they recognize, do the Biden people recognize that they have caused the war by their disturbance of the agreement, you can't even call it a treaty, it never got to that point, preliminarily negotiated in Turkey between Russia and Ukraine, for which British Prime Minister, then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was dispatched to disrupt? No, I don't think it's the way American leaders operate to accept responsibility for causing any trouble in the world.

What we axiomatically do is blame the other side. So I think that what you would hear is that, yes, there were negotiations going on in Istanbul after the war started, but it wasn't the West that sabotaged those relations. It was Putin and it was the Russians. It was their fault. They were making unreasonable demands, and that's why we told the Ukrainians that they should walk. But I think the argument that we had an opportunity to end the war shortly after it started and we blew it is hardly an argument that the Biden administration or any administration to that matter would ever make. What's going to happen now? Congress has adjourned for two weeks. The Republican controlled by a very narrow margin

House of Representatives seems steadfast against any aid to Ukraine. I understand from Colonel Schaefer that there is a little money in the kitty between $800 million and a billion. Imagine a billion-dollar slush fund that Congress just put into the National Defense Authorization Act, worked with the word Ukraine next to it so the president can spend how he wants. But the bottom line is he doesn't have the $68 billion he wants. The money's running out. The Ukrainian army is depleted. Where is this going in the next six months in Ukraine, in John Mearsheimer's view? Well, I think that the Europeans will pick up some of the slack, at least in the short term. And I think the belief is that when Congress comes back, they will get some money. I would guess that would happen,

but I thought they would have gotten the money in December. And I was wrong on that count. So maybe they won't get the money from the United States. Maybe there is enough resistance in Congress to prevent the money from being sent to Ukraine. I can't say for sure, but I think they'll get the money from the United States. They'll get money from the Europeans. But I think in the final analysis, it's not money that really matters. What they need are large numbers of weapons. They need lots of artillery tubes, artillery shells, tanks, aircraft, and so forth and so on. And the Europeans certainly don't have the ability to give them the weaponry they need. And the fact is the United States doesn't either. So I think that the Ukrainian army is basically doomed. They're not going to have enough equipment to wage this war so that they can stymie the

Russians. And furthermore, when you look at the problems they're having raising troops, you know, mobilizing the Ukrainian population to make up for all the losses on the battlefield over 2023, they're having a devil of a time raising more troops. So I think this is an army that is in really serious trouble, and it's likely the Russians are going to continue to prevail on the battlefield, whether we give them money or not. but it provokes me to ask you about it again when you said they need artillery tubes and artillery shells and the accoutrements that go with that, and Europe and the U.S. are not in a position to give it. Question, has the West dangerously depleted its own military stockpiles? Should, as my grandmother would say, God forbid, it ever needed for our own defensive purposes, the West, Europe, and the U.S.? Well, I think in terms of Europe, the answer is definitely yes.

These were armies, these European armies were weak armies to begin with, especially the German army. And Germany is the most powerful state in Europe. And they have depleted in large part their stocks, as have the British, by the way. And by the way, the British army today is remarkably small. It's smaller than it was at the time of the American Revolution. So these- Woo! Smaller than it was at the time of the American Revolution. Yes. The British army is remarkably small. And the idea that the British and the Germans could together fight a war against Russia today is not a serious argument. Because you want to understand that the Russian army today is much more formidable than it was on February 24th, 2022, when this war started. The Russians have mobilized a lot of men.

They have trained them up. They are well armed. So this is a formidable Russian army. And the German army and the British army are in pathetic shape. And again, their weapon stocks are run down and they don't have a lot of weaponry to give. Are American weapon stocks run down due to the profligate distribution of them to Ukraine? Somewhat, but not in any meaningful way. The United States is still in excellent shape. The fact is that we have spent almost the entire post-Cold War period fighting wars and spending huge amounts of money on defense.

So we have a lot of capability. We don't have sufficient weaponry to give to the Ukrainians. It's not like we have enough artillery shells and artillery tubes in our inventories that we can give the Ukrainians everything they need. But I think we clearly have enough to protect ourselves. What is the state of diplomatic relations as we speak, December 21st, 2023, between Russia and the United States, Professor Mearsheimer. If you listen to Putin speak these days, and he just gave a big end of the year press conference, and he's given a number of interviews with journalists and talks that are available on the internet, what you see is that he has deep-seated animosity towards the Europeans. He really has no interest in talking to the Europeans at all. He does haveated animosity towards the Europeans. He really has no interest in talking to the

Europeans at all. He does have some animosity towards the Americans, for sure, but I have the sense, anyway, that he has less animosity towards the United States than he does towards the Europeans. And by the way, a lot of this has to do with the fact that he has said two times now that he believes he was foolish, he was mistaken to have trusted the West for many years regarding not only Ukraine, but just general relations between the West and Russia. He thought that the West might possibly be able to treat Russia with some respect, and they may be able to work out some sort of modus vivendi. And of course, that didn't happen, witness the present war, and he now blames himself for not recognizing earlier that he was dealing with an opponent and

here we're talking about the west that couldn't be trusted we have a great clip chris chris has captured i think the essence of a four-hour interview he talks for 20 minutes no notes and then the question of four four hours no notes. I couldn't imagine Joe Biden doing that, but this is not to poke fun at Biden. But before we play this clip, do Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, and Antony Blinken, the American secretary of state, speak with each other? Do their principal deputies or underlings speak with each other. Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the Bay with WGU. With courses available online 24-7 and monthly start dates, WGU offers maximum flexibility so you can focus on your future.

Learn more at wgu.edu. I honestly don't know. I mean, I don't see any evidence of it, but there may be, you know, phone calls taking place between them. If they are talking to each other, I don't think anything of any consequence is resulting from those conversations. It may be the case that the Americans are interested in talking to the Russians. Blinken's interested in talking to Lavrov about working out some sort of ceasefire or armistice, but the Russians have made it clear that they're not interested in that. They're interested basically in a peace agreement on

their terms. The Russians think that they're now in the driver's seat and they want a peace agreement, not an armistice, a peace agreement on their terms. They are in the driver's seat in Ukraine, are they not? Oh, there's no question about that. The Ukrainians are in real trouble and people in Ukraine understand that and people in the West understand that. The question of whether we can fix that situation is another matter. People like me do not think you can fix the situation, that the Ukrainians are basically doomed. But as you would expect, lots of the foreign policy establishment in the West thinks that we can rescue the situation. The Russians, on the other hand, are quite optimistic. In fact, sometimes when you listen to Russians talk these days,

you think that they're overly optimistic. But they're clearly in the driver's seat, and Putin has a bounce in his step when he walks around. Here's President Putin, though seated, with a bounce in his step, analyzing the United States of America. Cut number one, Chris. Speaking of the United States, we're ready to talk to them too. We believe that the United States is an important and necessary country for the world. However, their absolutely imperial policy is hurting themselves. It's not even hurting us, it's hurting them, first and foremost,

because in the public eye they have to act as an empire. And when they're trying to compromise on something, their voters see this as a failure. That's why the elites are forced to act in this way. As soon as something changes domestically, this would establish the fundamental conditions that would allow them to respect others, to respect other countries, to seek compromise rather than use the force and sanctions. Only then will we see the fundamental conditions

to establish full-fledged relations with them. So far, we see the fundamental conditions to establish full-fledged relations with them. So far, we see none. Have you ever heard him say of the United States, this is a key phrase, Professor Mearsheimer, and I'm relying on the translation, they believe they have to act as an empire. No, I have not seen him use that terminology, which is not to say he never did, but I've never seen it like you. But the fact is that his view of the United States for a long time

has been that it is an empire or it is a hegemon. And so what he is saying in general is nothing new. This is a familiar theme. I think the fact is that Putin respects the United States in the sense that it's a very powerful country. He understands that power matters in international politics. The United States is the most powerful state on the planet, and you have to pay it serious attention. You have to talk to the Americans if you can. You're not dealing with the Europeans. The Europeans are weak, and from his point of view, largely inconsequential. It's the Americans who matter. But at the same time, he understands that the Americans want to run the world. We think that we're the indispensable nation, and we have a huge amount of power, and we run around the world causing all sorts of problems

for countries like Russia. And Putin, of course, recognizes that, and he's interested in countering us. Your last three or four sentences, could I append to them, no matter who is in the White House or which party controls Congress? Oh, absolutely. I mean, maybe if Ron Paul became president of the United States or Trump were reelected and he got to do everything he wanted. But aside from an outlier like the two of them, the mainstream of American politics, the vast majority of politicians in both parties, even lefties and righties, are of that view. We're an empire. We're the indispensable nation. We'll go where we want and kill whom we please. Yeah, I have long said that the Democratic Party and the Republican

Party, when it comes to foreign policy, are Tweedledee and Tweedledum. I think Trump is something of an outlier, but leaving him aside, if you look at the foreign policy establishments inside our two main political parties, they're basically indistinguishable. And by the way, you know, Putin was saying in his comments that maybe if you have a change in the domestic political situation in the United States, that might have an effect on foreign policy. I'm not sure about that. I think the foreign policy elites, by and large, ignore public opinion. If you look at public opinion on all sorts of issues, it's out of sync with what the elites do.

You see this in the Middle East with regard to the Gaza war. If you look at public opinion in the Democratic Party, you look at Democrats in the United States and how they think about the war in Gaza, and then you look at how the elites in the Republican Party behave, there's a real disconnect there. And this is true across issues. And it's because domestic politics just does not matter that much when it comes to foreign policy in the United States. So you have these two sets of elites that basically operate in a remarkably similar way. Well, here's someone who's in sync with those elites, irrespective of public opinion in the United States. You'll know who this is in an instant. Chris, cut number five. We are working very hard on this, and I am certain the United States of America will not betray us, and that on which we agreed in the United States will be fulfilled completely.

Will be fulfilled completely. Is he delusional, as he's been called by some of his closest aides, President Zelensky of Ukraine? I don't think this is evidence that he is delusional. I think that he has to say that to maximize the chances that he will get the aid next year that he's been unable to get in December. He's between a rock and a hard place here, and he has to pretend that he's definitely going to get the money that the United States would never double-cross him or anything like that. So I can understand why he said that, and I don't think that's delusional behavior on his part. Switching gears, here's Secretary Blinken. I'm sorry, looks like he hasn't slept in a few days, but here's Secretary Blinken yesterday saying,

oh, the Israelis are going to stop the killing. We're going to have a ceasefire. It's not Netanyahu. It's Hamas that's the problem. Cut number eight. Israel has been very clear, including as recently as today, that it would welcome returning to a pause in the further release of hostages. The problem was and has been and remains Hamas. They reneged on commitments that they made during the first pause for hostage releases. And the question is whether they are in fact willing to resume this effort. We believe that, as we said from the outset, Israel has not only a right,

but an obligation to defend itself and to try to make sure that October 7th never happens again. Any other country in the world faced with what Israel suffered on October 7th would do the same thing. What is striking to me is that even as, again, we hear many countries urging the end to this conflict, which we would all like to see, I hear virtually no one saying, demanding of Hamas that it stop hiding behind civilians, that it lay down its arms, that it surrender. This is over tomorrow if Hamas does that. This would have been over a month ago, six weeks ago, if Hamas had done that? And how could it be that there are no demands made of the aggressor and only demands made of the victim? I think there's a word of truth in the last three or four statements. This would have been

over a month ago. The Netanyahu regime is determined to level and eradicate Gaza. Your thoughts? Well, I think that what you get with Tony Blinken are the standard Israeli talking points. And this is hardly surprising at all. First of all, he is the Secretary of State in the United States of America, and the United States is joined at the hip with the Israelis. So whoever is Secretary of State, whether it's Tony Blinken or somebody else, is going to make similar arguments because we defend Israel unconditionally almost all the time. But furthermore, Tony Blinken has Israel lobby written all over him, as Max Blumenthal said on your show last week. I mean, he has been deeply committed to Israel and pushing the United States to support Israel for almost all of his adult life. So it's hardly surprising that he's making those kinds of arguments.

There's going to be a vote in the UN today or tomorrow before they break for Christmas, a second effort to get the General Assembly, which I guess is meaningless without the Security Council. You would know better than I exactly how the rules and regulations of the UN work. But another vote on a ceasefire. You expect the United States to vote no again, along with 10 other countries against 153 who will vote yes. Now, this is a vote in the Security Council. And once you're in the Security Council, the United States can exercise its veto. All right. So will they veto again? I thought this, we were back in the General Assembly.

Thank you for the correction. No, in the General Assembly, you can just have a vote and the United States and Israel will lose decisively, but it just doesn't mean much. The idea here is that the Security Council matters a lot more. And if you get some sort of ceasefire resolution out of the Security Council, that may have some teeth. But even there, it's not clear it will have that much effect on the Israelis. But the question is whether you're going to get this resolution. And everything depends on the language. And almost every country except the United States, inside the Security Council, wants rather tough language. People are interested in just putting an end to this war.

And apropos Tony Blinken's comments a few minutes ago, the United States, much like Israel, is not interested in ending this war. The United States and Israel want to defeat Hamas. And to defeat Hamas is going to take a long time. The Israelis are not close at this point in time to defeating Hamas. So this war has to go on for a long time. So when people start talking about a permanent ceasefire, putting an end to this war, this is something the Israelis and the Americans, especially someone like Tony Blinken, doesn't want to hear. So we want to craft a resolution that maybe shuts things down briefly, but not forever. Has Joe Biden, have Tony Blinken and their colleagues, maybe this is a frivolous question, but I'll ask in any way, learned any lessons over this. Joe, the president, seems to be trying to straddle both sides. His lifelong commitment to the state of Israel,

his understanding that the behavior of the Israeli government in Gaza is reprehensible. 20,000 deaths thus far, 7,000 of them babies under the age of seven. Maybe a few hundred Hamas killers, the rest civilians. Males kidnapped, males tortured, males stripped and paraded through the streets. I would submit that Israel has lost the PR war catastrophically. You tell me if they've even made a dent in Hamas. Well, it's very hard to say exactly how much damage they've done to Hamas, because there's just not much information. The Israelis control who gets into Gaza, who gets out, what they see. And therefore, there's not a lot of hard facts in the media.

And that includes the Israeli press as well. My sense is that they're not doing very well at all. First of all, the Israelis only control about 40% of Gaza. Just think about it. They control 40%. That means the other 60% is territory where Hamas can go and the Israelis can't get at them. Second, the Israelis have not captured any hostages. That's quite surprising. If they haven't captured any hostages, that probably tells you a lot about their ability to find the Hamas fighters. Furthermore, if you look at the number of people that the Israelis have killed, the number is about 20,000, as you said before.

And most people agree that about 70% of that 20,000 is women and children. So that would be 14,000. That means that the Israelis have killed 6,000 males. Now, those 6,000 males were certainly not all Hamas fighters. Most of them, I'm sure, were innocent civilians. So let's say of the 6,000, 4,000 were civilians and 2,000 were Hamas fighters. I don't think that's the likely number, but let's give the Israelis the benefit of the doubt. That says that they've killed 2,000 Hamas fighters. Well, most people argue that Hamas had 30,000 to 40,000 fighters to start with. If they had 30,000 to 40,000 fighters and they've killed 2,000, that means they have a whole heck of a lot of fighters left. Finally, you just don't see any

evidence of the Israelis capturing Hamas fighters and then taking pictures of them or videos of them or parading them around. The people that they're parading around, the males that they're parading around and humiliating, are in almost all cases civilians who they have captured and are interrogating. So I just don't see a lot of evidence that the Israelis, the IDF, is winning this war against Hamas. I think it's going to have to go on for a long time if there's any hope of ultimately, decisively defeating Hamas. Given the accuracy of what you say about the Israelis controlling information, what's the other side of that coin? How many Israeli soldiers have been killed or captured?

This is a very tricky issue. You know, if you go on Telegram and you look at what the pictures and the videos that Hamas is releasing, it looks like they're doing a lot of damage to the Israelis, that they're putting up a real fight, Hamas is. I'm not 100% sure of that. It's hard to tell exactly what's going on. And then occasionally you'll catch a glimpse in the Israeli press that the casualty numbers are up in the thousands. And it could be the case that the Israelis are really having a tough time. I was wondering if the Israelis are not now interested in a ceasefire for a week's time so that they can regroup and think through their strategy for dealing with Hamas. But I would imagine, given

that Hamas has all these tunnels, all these buildings they can fight from, that this is urban warfare, that the Israelis are having a very difficult time dealing with Hamas. And in the process, the Israelis are suffering quite a few casualties. But again, that's a somewhat speculative comment because it's just hard to tell given the lack of really good evidence. Who or what is likely to outlast the other, Hamas or the premiership of Benjamin Netanyahu? Well, I think that Hamas is not going to be finished off. I think that Hamas is here for the foreseeable future. I may be wrong, but as I've said before, even if Hamas disappears, there'll be another resistance group that pops up to take its place. With regard to Netanyahu, I've long argued that, you know, once the dust settles, that he is likely, you know, to be removed from power. Maybe not immediately, but after a few months. But many people say that you want to be very cautious when you predict his demise,

because he's somebody who has nine lives and he's not used them all up yet. So he may be around for the long term as well. My guess is he will not be, especially if he doesn't defeat Hamas. And as I said, I don't think that he's going to defeat Hamas. And I think, as you said earlier, what's happening in Gaza is a huge black mark on Israel's reputation. And I think this will become more of a problem once the dust settles and people take stock of what's happened. Is there any military purpose served by destroying a Palestinian cemetery? Professor Meir Schomer. No. I mean, I think that it's very clear what the Israelis are doing here is they're not simply interested in fighting and destroying Hamas. They're interested in inflicting massive punishment

on the civilian population in Gaza. You want to understand that they are not only bulldozing up cemeteries. We now have a situation where there is not a single functioning hospital in northern Gaza, not a single functioning hospital. And the hospital situation in southern Gaza is rapidly moving towards the hospital situation in northern Gaza. This is unbelievable. They've destroyed, you know, huge numbers of buildings. 90%, 90% of the population of Gaza has been displaced. I could go on and on. It's truly amazing what they're doing. But this has little military utility. And if anything, what it does is it reinforces the population, the Palestinian population's support for Hamas. So I think this makes little sense at all. There you go. Professor Mearsheimer, it's been a pleasure. I thank you for our friendship and our wonderful collaboration during the year. I know it's

Christmas week. We have Best Of on Monday and Tuesday, Christmas and the day after, and you're prominently featured in there. But if your family will give you a few free minutes, we'll be back on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of next week. From the cold winters of Chicago, John Mearsheimer. It's a pleasure, Professor. Thank you very much. And Merry Christmas to you and your family. Thank you very much. And Merry Christmas to you, Judge. Thank you.

More coming up, my dear friends, later today and tomorrow. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thanks for watching!